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.

THE TRUTH OF VACCINE ATTRITION

-->

THE TRUTH OF VACCINE ATTRITION

Utilising the data from the final report 2010:
Grant Final Report Grant ID: R18 HS 017045 Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) Inclusive dates: 12/01/07 - 09/30/10

Ref: https://tinyurl.com/lzecs3v

Where the independent analysts state: “1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month.”

And then go on to say: “Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

Given this analysis, this translates as follows:

890 reported vaccine events occur every month, however, this is being underreported by a factor of 100 if only 1% or less are actually reported.

Thus: 89,000 vaccine events actually occured every month (this between 2006 – 2009)

Between 2007 – 2016, this value increased with the ramping up of the vaccine schedule to a quantum of: 98,528 events every month of which:

719 deaths per month occur (8,628 per year)

1,818 permanent disabilities per month occur (21,816 per year)

6,886 hospitalisations per month occur (82,632 per year)

17,140 ER visits per month occur (205,680 per year)

The purpose of the analysis, sponsored by the CDC, was to improve the accuracy of VAERS with a vision to automate this system, however, when CDC saw the statistical data, the analysts went on to state: “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

In other words, when the horrifying truth of the attrition rate associated with vaccines (in an ever-increasing schedule) became apparent, the CDC clinicians and management went in to hiding and stopped answering the phones.

Why? Well perhaps because they’re effectively a vaccine company gleaning over 50% of their annual revenue from the sale of vaccines and individuals within the organization have personal stakes in the sales of vaccines which is remunerated on an annual basis. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens…

They are supposed to be the regulator of vaccines and the custodians of vaccine safety yet they refuse to perform the very duty with which they are tasked and for which they are very well paid indeed. Anyone smelling a rat, a cancerous, vaccine-damaged lab rat yet?

Perhaps I’m missing something and I need to be reminded again, how vaccines are safe when they are clearly killing and maiming more people than the diseases they’re purportedly protecting against could ever do. Just look at measles as a prime example. Thousands of people are being maimed and killed on a monthly basis by vaccines but there’s panicked hysteria when a few hundred people contract measles in the US and states of emergency are declared, minority groups targeted and exemptions brought under threat. Any medical emergency to be called should be around vaccine damage and attrition and the epidemics that are being perpetuated by these untested medications.

And this is only in the US – extrapolate that globally and you get an idea of why there are so many sick and disabled kids today. The epidemics we are facing with our kids – allergies, developmental disabilities, ADD, ADHD, ASD ailments, autism, childhood diabetes, childhood asthma, SIDS, childhood cancers and on and on – all things that were virtually nonexistent before 1989 -  the year they ramped up the vaccine schedule.

The medical authorities are lying to the public. The vaccines are not only unsafe, they are more dangerous than the diseases they purportedly protect against.
And there are those out there who still want to tell me that ex-vaxxers and those who have actually read the science are the ones posing a risk to society.
If one reads the science, gets the facts straight, does the math and joins the dots – like in the summation above, the conclusions are unavoidable and startlingly scary.

Time we took our power, our bodies and our health back.

THE ASSANGE PARADOX

THE VACCINATION ERADICATED WHOOPING COUGH, DIPHTHERIA, MEASLES, SCARLET FEVER, TYPHOID FEVER AND POLIO MYTH

Beautifully summarised on Instagram by the redoubtable Robert F Kennedy Jr, a champion in the safe-vaccine cause and a proponent of the factual peer-reviewed science on the topic.

"When the tide is receding from the beach it is easy to have the illusion that one can empty the ocean by removing the water with a pail." René Dubos (1901 - 1982)

Vaccinology's Genesis story begins with the myth that vaccines played the key role in ending the infectious disease epidemics that killed millions in the early 20th century.
I'm posting these graphs as a handy tool for you to show anyone who requires illustrated proof, that they did not.
The team of CDC and Johns Hopkins epidemiologists explain that more than 90% of the decline in infectious mortality among US children occurred before 1940 when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.
CDC assigns credit for abolishing measles, dysentery, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, cholera, the plague etc. from the civilized world, to improved nutrition and advances in water and sewer treatment, hygiene, chlorination and refrigeration. Their eradication has almost nothing to do with vaccines.
"Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in Health of Americans During the 20th Century" 
The McKinlays warned that vaccinologists and others in the medical industry would try to take credit in order to expand their profits and power. 

You may refer zealots who still harbor doubts, to the CDC's Dec 2000 study published by the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) in the vaccine industry's own publication, PEDIATRICS.
The CDC study concludes that, 
"Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century..."
A seminal study on the same subject by McKinlay and McKinlay concludes that vaccines can account for less than 1% of the decline in infectious disease mortality.

The study was published in the Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Volume 55, Issue 3 (pages 405 - 428) 







This information is also contained in Suzanne Humphries' illuminating book, Dissolving Illusions which is a must-read for anyone interested in discovering the truth about vaccines and the chequered factual history of vaccination.

GUILTY PLEASURES (?)

GUILTY PLEASURES (?)
Couple of idyllic days spent down in Sydney with Karen, sis-in-law, Lez and her fiancé, Paul. Sublime. Mostly.
It was all about fireworks (that paradox - wanted to see the famous Sydney NYE pyrotechnics yet abhor crowds and have issues with the effect of fireworks on animals) - bucket list stuff versus that mentioned.
And while the fireworks display was memorable and the sense of community synergy palpable across a sway of ethnic diversity (the view on TV would have eclipsed what we actually saw though), all of the questionable aspects rose to the surface and, for me at least, assumed prominence and sadly remained as the lasting taste.
The utter bedlam leaving the place smacked of a city that no longer cared now that the cash had been counted and the 12 minute crescendo was over. For a country that is ordinarily so regulated, organised and safety obsessed, the withdrawal of hundreds of thousands of people from the public viewing sites over unlit kerbs, plants, obstacles and a sea of garbage, was a case of - every-man-for-himself (in this age of PC fucktartedness - this applies to females too, as it always has). In short, the officials, mounted cops et-al really didn't give a shit as to who, how or why we stumbled out of the various venues. They'd had a long day. We all had. Just go.
Oh, and happy new year...yawn.
Make no mistake, there was the usual upbeat sense of celebration (for many) and the ubiquitous doof-doof cacophony that passes as a contemporary ritual soundtrack, was thrumming in the background. But I couldn't help feeling, the people (the majority of them who began to head awkwardly exit wise as soon as the last pyrotechnical reflection had faded from view) were exuding an overwhelming sense of relief. But glad that what was over? The event, the year, both? Who knew? But people just wanted to get out of there.
As did the flocks of flying foxes who'd been terrified into flight by the booming explosions and light show.
Which got me to thinking of the thousands of animals unable to quit the city environs, pets and wildlife and feral creatures collectively. They must have been terrified beyond measure. And for what? 12 minutes of multicoloured incendiary displays along a stretch of the river accompanied by loud, percussive blasts so that we could all get our aws and oohs on while flicking through several thousand selfies and a shitload of booze and food that we ordinarily would avoid in those given quantities at those inflated prices.
It's an arbitrary line in the chronological sands of time that we have drawn to mark the "end" of this solar cycle. We could just as well have drawn it at the end of any other seasonal quarter or Gregorian month - we just happened to choose December (originally the tenth month of the year - it's that arbitrary) and now we celebrate the closure of that cycle and the commencement of another in the hope that we may be able to change things about ourselves, many of which we've probably just perpetuated during the ritual annual closure event, euphemistically called New Year.
Which begs the question - why can't we just be better, kinder people all the time?
If we were, we would be lighting a simple ritual flame on the Harbour Bridge, perhaps, donating all the taxpayers cash to worthwhile humanitarian endeavours and certainly not terrifying the bejesus out of the animals we purport to love so much with our cacophonic explosive light show - all 12 minutes of it.
I came away from it all feeling relieved yet empty. Guilty. Guilty pleasures? No, not even that. Just like it was a checked box that could have and should have had another label next to it.
I won't be doing it again and while I don't imagine anyone in Sydney City Council is going to cry off their famous NYE event any time soon, I certainly won't be supporting it in years to come.
The surprise bonus - both Karen and I, caught up in the swarm mentality of the occasion, completely forgot our own wedding anniversary. We woke up this morning to this wonderful surprise and the quiet sparkle in my beautiful wife's eyes outshines any fireworks display on Earth.
Subliminally I had felt the sense of occasion (not new year, something more intensely visceral) the day before and had bought her a stunning opal ring. I don't know why.
At least I didn't.
I do now.
It was important.
The other stuff is not.