Hilary's Desk

Yesterday, Jeremy Muir, editor of the Gisborne Herald, published this editorial. The debate started as a result of Dr Lance O’Sullivan’s public antics.

Part of the editorial says:

“If anti-vaccination protagonists cannot provide peer-reviewed research that has been published in respected journals, and not later retracted, this subject will soon be closed as a matter for discussion in The Gisborne Herald and on our website — unless new evidence emerges. More commentary will be published in Saturday’s paper, with response."

Let me give you some back story.

On 3rd June, this article was provided to Jeremy Muir. Even though the original provided to Jeremy, conformed to the 600 word policy, he replied to me as follows:

Thanks for sending this in. We aren't able to run the additional images so you'll have to work out how to incorporate that information in the text of your piece Hilary. Unfortunately our maximum word count for columns is 600 so there's not much space for additional words and it might require some cutting as well. Kind regards Jeremy Muir

You can see why he didn’t want to print it. After all, it’s very solid and backed by peer reviewed references all nicely embedded for you to check for yourself. Great article, right?

So on 6th June, I provided him with another article which apparently got lost. Here is the article to be published tomorrow, and here is the attachment.

It was only when someone ELSE copied into the email, queried Jeremy as to why he had not done anything with my article, that he replied on 13th June:

sorry I was waiting for it but see from this it should have arrived on Tuesday evening. I didn’t see it then and can’t find it in my email trail. I have it now though thanks. Kind regards Jeremy

Tomorrow, we will see exactly what the provaccine have to say. No doubt, it will continue to conform to the usual Department of Health Kiss rhetoric in yet another attempt to shut down both intelligent thinking and discussion by pretending there is no evidence or science.

Another sentiment from Jeremy’s editorial caught my eye:

Many readers will agree with the person who privately urged the editor to stop providing anti-vax propaganda so much oxygen.

“They will see that a trusted institution like The Gisborne Herald is giving (them coverage) and think they must have valid points to make. Meanwhile, we are struggling to get all our children vaccinated. The sad thing is those children are at risk of becoming very ill from a preventable disease.”

Who was "the person"??? This remark clearly comes from a doctor, as in "we". A statement which drips the entitled belief that decision making regarding children belong to doctors rather than to parents. What exactly is that doctor afraid of?

These are the same doctors who DO NOT give parents vaccine package inserts, and who plainly don’t consider that parents are able to use their brains to make an informed decision.  In other words, we are stupid, right?

Why are doctors so scared of informing parents? Wouldn’t you think that if their rhetoric matched the truth that parents experienced, that all parents would want to continue vaccinating with every new vaccine that came out?

Why do these medical people and editors not ask themselves, "Why is it that ex-pro-vaccine, very intelligent people, have now become the driving force of the anti-vaccine movement in New Zealand? What do they know, that others don't?"

Many peer reviewed medical studies now state that it’s the university educated people with high incomes who are making the NO VACCINES choice. Are the medical researchers now insinuating that the educated and rich, have suddenly become stupid?

Why does no-one ask the question, "Why do the not so rich vaccinate?" Could it be that just like in Australia they HAVE no choice BUT to vaccinate because they are dependent on government income to survive? Isn't the success of financial coercion WHY people like Dr Lance O'Sullivan, want the same "no jabs no pay" legislation brought into New Zealand?

Thinking people should stop and ask WHY IT IS, that societal coercion and monetary blackmail has reached the point, where ONLY the well-heeled rich who don't rely on taxpayer money, have the freedom of thought to research and are (reluctantly) "allowed" to actually make an informed choice? 

If you are pro vaccine and scoffing at that question, answer this one.  "On what basis did YOU make your supposedly informed choice?"  Or are you just defending the fact that you....



To be continued.