Last night TVNZ did a phone interview with me on the hot topic from the New South Wales legislature which has introduced legislation to ban unvaccinated children from child-care facilities. The Australian opposition leader Mr John Robertson wrote an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (pdf), which epitomises the lack of thinking behind this legislation. He said:
This is a politician who goes on taxpayer junkets, tanked up with travel vaccines, to countries which are hotbeds of swirling disease. He smiles and swans around mentally secure in the alleged “vaccine force-field of protection” around himself, yet his own child, in a country with far higher vaccine rates than most other countries, is suddenly is at risk from sitting next to an unvaccinated kid? With this kind of illogical non-thinking, is it any wonder Australia has so many “unsolved” issues with politicians talking like functional illiterates?
So….. TVNZ breakfast decided to debate this issue, and started the debate off with a small segment, extracted from a long phone interview with me, which plays here:
Then the other side was represented by Dr Elizabeth Wilson who ran with the hares (“Part of me says “go for it” (legislation) but another part of me ….”) She knows full well compulsion is never the answer. Yet control and compliance is usually the mainstay of the paediatric medical model today. Ask any parent who attempts to have partnership with Starship staff.
However the most interesting comment from her, was when she said that the problem with the non-vaccine advocates, is that they miss the bigger picture, particularly in relation to measles and whooping cough which require over 95% herd immunity to stop the spread.
It’s not the non-vaccinators who miss the bigger picture.
It’s the pro vaccine lobby who are incapable of seeing what’s right in front of their own eyes.
Since she quoted whooping cough and measles, let’s look at both:
New Zealand has about a 97% vaccination rate for whooping cough vaccine right now. We’ve also had a rampaging epidemic for as long as I can remember. Even NZ medical articles admit that the whooping cough vaccine has done NOTHING to stop the decades of whooping cough infections. Yet they call for more vaccination. Duh!
Given that the last three decades has seen non-stop media coverage about ‘whooping cough epidemics”, wouldn’t you think that the remainder of the population are constantly being made immune? Wouldn’t you think they’d be asking the question, “Why isn’t the whooping cough vaccine working?”
With the huge numbers of whooping cough cases we have every year, you’d think that we’d have just about 100% herd immunity, wouldn’t you?
But we don’t.
Why? Because of the vaccine. And this is the bit of FACT that the Elizabeth Wilson should know about, but doesn’t want to talk about.
The very “immunity” the whooping cough vaccine creates, is the “wrong” immunity. It not only perpetuates whooping cough, but facilitates it’s spread. And the proof is all there in the medical literature. Elizabeth Wilson should know all that, and if she doesn’t, why doesn’t she?
If you want the scientific proof, then read this section of the pertussis resource.
The only people in this country who have meaningful immunity in 2013, are those whose first experience of whooping cough resulted in natural immunity from the disease, which enables them to rapidly clear the bacteria on re-infection, and their immunity lasts for over 30 years.
The vaccinated “immunity” is not only very short-lived – maybe three years at most but the worst problem is that vaccinated people can’t clear the bacteria on re-infection for a very long time. Like I said, all the “experts” should know this, but no-one’s talking about it. If they explained to parents what the vaccine actually does, parents would be horrified. Why? Because it will be decades before enough naturally immune people can form a “herd” of solid natural immunity, because the majority of adults today have the faulty vaccine immunity which is facilitating the spread of the bacteria.
To make things more complicated, the vaccine also gives some antibodies which suppresses serious symptoms. The down side of that, is that the resultant infection just looks like a “nuisance cough”, so immunised people walk about blithely thinking that this cough is just a nuisance, when in reality they are a walking bacterial reservoir – an infection time bomb, silently spreading the disease to vulnerable people, because they don’t realise that that their coughing is whooping cough. And why would they?
After all, this is what the health Department told them when they were vaccinated back in 1985:
The problem is that being vaccinated, doesn’t mean you won’t catch it. Which is why they got rid of that little ditty fairly quickly. In the case of whooping cough, vaccination means you can later catch it repeatedly and spread it prolifically.
That brings me to the next point which Elizabeth Wilson carefully ducked in her comments on measles.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if she had told the listeners HOW MANY of the measles cases had had 2 MMR shots? The fact is that most whooping cough cases are in vaccinated people, and many measles cases are in vaccinated people. It’s the “dirty little secret” that Elizabeth Wilson didn’t admit on TV.
That revelation might have raised a few eyebrows. But again, we can’t possibly let the public know that there are downsides to the propaganda. Like… well, it’s not quite true, what we tell you…
Furthermore, measles in healthy children (whether vaccinated or not) should never lead to complications or death. Where were all the complications and deaths in the unvaccinated measles cases? There weren’t any.
In 1991, both measles deaths were immune compromised, and one of them was vaccinated. In 1997, five of the deaths had immune system problems – something Dianna Lennon knows full well, since she was the one that did the chart review, spoke about it at a doctors meeting – which got back to me via three of the doctors there - , but Dr Lennon, subsequently went to ground on the issue when I asked for verification of that through an OIA to the Ministry of Health. Why did she go to ground? And Elizabeth Wilson will also know that, because she and Dr Lennon operate within the System, and that System has extensive media training, ensuring that they all speak in lockstep with one voice!.
Isn’t it logical that rule number one, is that you don’t want ANY sick children at a day-care, period???
One of the people pushing for this NSW legislation in Australia, is the owner of a day-care, who BROKE THIS VERY RULE HERSELF. Read the story here: (pdf)
The guts of this story is simple. Marita Howell is the operator of the suburb's Mary Campbell Pre-School Child Care Centre. In a moment of stupidity (unless putting dollars above your child’s health is considered sane) she decided to take her child who had leukemia, was chemotherapy immunosuppressed and too sick to go to school… to her childcare centre to look after him. The article says, “Two unvaccinated children fuelled an outbreak of chickenpox at the centre...” Fuelled?
Does that mean that vaccinated children also go it?
We aren’t told. All we are told is that she believes that vaccination legislation should be in place so that she could take her SICK kid to a child care centre and he would be safe from unvaccinated children. She assumes that the only sick children are unvaccinated! Just maybe she should check her attendance records and on location client health diaries. If she bothers to keep such informative documents.
And…. are immunable diseases the ONLY diseases which affect immunosuppressed? No. All infections do.
So it’s ironic that the owner of a childcare centre would actually decide to take a a sick child to look after in a place which the medical profession recognises as one of the biggest bug spreading devices known to man, ALONG with schools, hospitals and doctor’s surgeries!
Yes, measles and chickenpox are a problem for very young babies or immunosuppressed children, which brings me right back to the original question. Should unvaccinated be banned from childcare?
Let me answer the question this way:
Just say I was the OWNER of that childcare centre. Which children would I ban?
I would ban any SICK children for the duration of any sickness, and I would ban any children vaccinated against the flu.
It’s usually blindingly obvious to observant parents when their children are coming down with something, even though many parents apparently have not had this revelation of the blindingly obvious. Children incubating any illness behave very differently than when they are feeling “normal”.
So let’s split these two problems apart:
1) Banning sick children. It should be a no-brainer, but sick children should NEVER be allowed in any day-care centre period. If you talk to child-care centres, the BANE of their lives are parents whose children wake up sick, but who consider the ‘right’ thing to do is dose that sick kid with Pamol and some OTC cold medication and send them to day-care anyway. That parents only concern is getting to work, or whatever activity it is, that makes day-care a “baby-sitting” service. I don’t know one day-care around here, that during the winter, doesn’t have at least one weakly wallflower sniffling away in the corner.
Yes, I know a lot of the day-care owners would LOVE to ban sick children. Just you try, and you get really stroppy parents who believe that their entitlement is for you to be parent to their child under all circumstances, and threaten to take their dollars elsewhere, so in a business where the dollar rules, in general, day-care centres just put up with lots of snotty nosed sneezing bug factories running around.
And no, I would never put my child in day-care, but then, we also had no time for play-centre, kindy, or any other “baby-sitting” operation when our children were little.
What did we do?
A group of us like minded parents, met regularly in each others’ houses on designated days which were sunny. If anyone had a sick child, or a child looking ‘not right’, they didn’t come.
And that’s how it should be.
But it won’t be, in a world where mothers have to work to make ends meet, or use day-cares as baby-sitting services because they want time out, or actually don’t like being a mother in the first place.
Other options? Porse perhaps, but even there, I’ve heard a few horror stories.
2) Banning children vaccinated with the flu vaccine.
Here’s the background:
I’ve lost count of the numbers of parents who complain that their children get sick in the two weeks after any vaccine. That comment is like a stuck record. And the doctor says, "Oh, it's coincidental!"
Somewhere in this house is an article where Dr Ellis-Peglar’s daughter was vaccinated, got sick in the week after, and he stated that, and laughed, pronounced it as a common myth, and oh yes, ... just a "coincidence". Everything with vaccines, is a "coincidence".
Why mention just the flu vaccine then?
Because at the moment, it’s the only vaccine for which there is now proof that the vaccination itself, leads to an increased risk of infection from other respiratory viruses.
And the “proof” was only solid last year.
As a reminder,.... every years, you hear the medical profession trying to dispell the “urban myth” which says, “get a flu shot, then get the flu”. Of course, with the SHIVERS project now underway, we know that the majority of what is diagnosed as the flu is not the flu.
Here is the graph, from the latest Shiver's report. All the red is the REAL influenza, and the blue is what is called influenza .... but isn't influenza - even though it's classified as "influenza-like illnesses" and the non flu respiratory viruses, are used by the medical system to justify the need for an influenza vaccine!.
I’ve always believed the "myth" of "get the flu vaccine, get the 'flu'...", because… it’s true. In 1993, on a trip to USA, I was booked into a medical conference. Three days before it’s start, it was cancelled. Why? Because all the key note speakers had got flu shots two weeks before the conference, and every jack one of them was too sick 'with the flu' to be a key-note speaker. I laughed and laughed, and spent that week messing around with Ruth and Anthony Morris instead.
Much nicer than going to a silly medical conference with people who can’t see what is right in front of their eyes, anyway.
In 2011, I laughed and laughed again, when an article (Kelly) came over my desk which commented that children vaccinated with the flu had much higher rates of other respiratory viruses than the unvaccinated. The author dismissed the phenomenon saying:
How farcical … in science it appears any old coincidental explanation will do.
Kelly tempered this with another article which found no evidence of either BENEFIT or HARM in children vaccinated with the seasonal flu vaccine. No doubt this was on the basis that he still believed that the flu vaccine causing non-flu respiratory illnesses, was .... “implausible”.
He’s wrong. And if being wrong means the flu vaccine causes unnecessary respiratory infections, then that is a demonstrable “harm”, unless you want to argue that influenza like illnesses never harmed anyone.
Any such “implausibility” went out the window last year, when the 2012 Cowling study (+ supplemental data) – the first one since the 1980 WHO India BCG trial using a REAL SALINE PLACEBO - found that while the influenza vaccine conferred “antibodies” against the flu, there was no “real life” difference in influenza infections between the vaccinated and unvaccinated! Which is pretty much what the Cochrane Collaboration has always said. Yet the Influenza vaccine is now part of the "mandated" child schedule? And this is where that fact is important:
In the Cowling study….. there was a HUGE increase in clinical non-flu respiratory infections in those who were vaccinated with the flu vaccine, compared to those who got the saline placebo. I'd also like to know, on the basis of the Cowling study, how much of the blue in the SHIVERS graph above, was respiratory infections provoked by having the flu vaccine in the first place.
Why is the saline placebo so important in this study?
Normally, any vaccine trial, uses another vaccine as a “placebo” – because it’s “important” that all participants “benefit” from being part of the study. The assumption being that everything offered, tested or not, will always be of "benefit".
If the Cowling study had used another vaccine as a placebo, there might not have been any difference in the rate of clinical non-flu respiratory infections in either group – on the basis of my 30 years of observation that ALL vaccines can result in the recipients getting sick!!!
A saline placebo does not provoke the immune system… so for the first time in decades, Cowling et al eliminated the immune system provocation of “another vaccine”, which would have masked the effect of the flu vaccine.
Of course a comparative study of fully vaccinated and never vaccinated children from ages 0 - 20 would in my opinion, immediately bury all the other current pro-vaccine “coincidental” myths, but such a study currently lies in the “camels might fly” category.
If my decisions as a child-care owner didn’t have to depend on science, I would simply ban all vaccinated children, period.
Of course, if I did that, I’d make no money for the simple reason that most non-vaccinating parents wouldn’t put their children into day-care if you paid them to. Just as I wouldn’t have, either….
While a pro-vaccine editor wanted Australian schools for unvaccinated children (pdf) on the basis that it would protect the vaccinated children (snort) I’d consider opening schools for unvaccinated children so that they didn’t have to endure the ignorant brainwashing from the public health vaccination “lectures”, which are supposedly the means of conveying "consent information" to parents, once the frightened children run home. If what children had to see and hear from public health nurses in schools, was shown to the parents, I believe there would be a national outcry. Most children simply don't think to tell their parents what they saw.
I’d have other reasons not to send any child to a state school, but... perhaps those reasons are for another blog… or maybe not.
Addendum: And our children were both home-schooled. One guess why? Actually, all intelligent guesses might also be correct….