“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

The Medieval Measles war-of-words.

Hilary Butler - Thursday, August 16, 2012

An Australian website, is indulging what I call Orwellian "Department of Truth" speak, where the "truth" is avoided at all costs while decoy blame is laid elsewhere.  This is really a 2012 version of "medieval - speak". 


Let me explain. First, let's look at the Herald Sun's show and tell. The very first thing you see is a child being vaccinated...



...and in the first sentence of the article, the blaming finger is pointed at those who chose not to vaccinate. It's telling that the Herald Sun converts a legally allowed "choice" into a derogatory "refusal". It's called "word loading":

The health scare involving 40 cases concentrated in the Campbelltown area comes as new medical research shows a record number of parents are refusing to immunise their children.

REFUSING, REFUSING, REFUSING...But what has this outbreak to do with those who don't vaccinate? Nothing actually.

We have to read much further down the article to see that these measles cases were in provaccine families.  The Health Department says:

Dr Stephen Conaty, the SWSLHD's public health director, said the measles outbreak came from Thailand and most of those affected have been of Pacific Islander descent.

Dr Conaty said this was because people may have moved to Australia between their first and second dose of the vaccine.

The article also says:

The majority of those affected have been school-aged children and babies under 12 months old.

The Department of Education confirmed four high schools and a number of primary schools had circulated letters of warning to parents. In all cases, those infected were not fully immunised
.


What the Herald Sun does. is deliberately link two issues in an unrelated manner, - measles in children of provaccine families, with parents choosing not to vaccinate.  The article implies both blame and linkeage.....the Paul Offit line that "those who don't vaccinate threaten us all".

It’s also a fallacy for the medical system and the Herald Sun to say that a record number of parents are refusing to immunise their children.” 

First, Australia has never had higher vaccination rates than it has today. The numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate, has never been lower than it is today.  Second, choosing, is not a refusal, it's a right of choice.
 
But for the first time in history, everyone who chooses not to vaccinate, is being labelled, counted, and classified as "refusers". Where are all these completely unimmunised children by choice, with measles, ......who are dying, ....or filling the hospital in this outbreak? There aren't any.  All those in hospital are children of provaccine parents. 

Back to the word "refuse".  I don't drink alcohol. I chose NOT to drink alcohol. So does the Government state that I refuse to drink alcohol? or that I refuse to smoke?  That I refuse to try methamphetamine? The new use of the word "refuse", is a calculated move.  The medical profession has used this word in the medical litearature and introduced it into the media deliberately, in order to manipulate how people see others, and have encouraged the use of a judgementally loaded word, to be used and make incorrect inferences in this situation.  The use of the word "refuse" is not a slip of the tongue, or an accident.  It's a long planned strategy.

The medical system has a history of similar word redefinition. Take for instance, a reference in a hospital file such as, "Patient denies taking medication."  Some people very rarely use paracetamol or take OTC medication. I'm one of them. I can count the number of paracetamol tablets I've taken in my life, on one hand minus the thumb. But the medical profession finds such a situation incredulous, so your records might not say that you don't take medication, but that you DENY that you take medication. The implication is that you're a liar, untrustworthy and not a good member of society.  Likewise, "choice" to vaccinate or not, which implies decisions and rights, has to be villified by the medical system changing the word "choice" to "refuse".  Again, you become someone who is not a good member of society. 

The only factual story here, is provaccine Polynesian families with children who had one shot of the MMR vaccine and now have measles, from a case imported from Thailand.

Who wants to talk about the one dose that didn't protect the Polynesian kids?  Who wants to talk about that Australian poster which once stated "only one shot"? 



Who wants to talk about WHY it is that MOST of the measles cases are in babies under 12 months, in the first place? Before the vaccine came along, it was exceedingly rare for any baby under 12 months to get measles. 

Who is even concerned that  babies under 12 months, are getting measles courtesy of the current vaccination programme which has ruined the solid long-term protection mothers used to give to their babies, because vaccinated mothers no longer pass solid long term immunity to their babies?  

The medical system is encouraging all those who believe that vaccination should be compulsory, to embark on a new type of "social pogrom" using incorrectly loaded terms, to vilify and attempt to "eradicate", those who chose not to vaccinate.

Does the medical system actually go to the media and mammamia.com and say, "Villify these people"?

No. They don't need to. The medical system simply "comes out" with new findings --- in the same breath as reporting on the measles outbreak. The medical system knows full well that the hearers will colour the picture the way the medical system wants, just by word association. 

The medical profession is the instigator of, and accomplice to pillorying and villification of those who make the choice to not vaccinate, because the medical system knows exactly how to use and manipulate the media against parents who had nothing to do with this outbreak in the first place.

Centuries ago, in the middle ages, the Jews were subject to extermination attempts - for similar reasons.

The Jewish parts of European cities had very little plague, because the Jews had laws governing food, food storage, cleanliness etc. There was little for the rats to do, or live off, in the Jewish quarters, so the plague numbers were minimal. At the time, the population as a whole, didn't realise that rats were the carriers of the plague. The Jews just did what Jews did, because of their religious traditions.  The result was very few rats = very little plague.

Those in other city quadrants who lived by choice, in squalor and midden heaps which the rats revelled in, looked at the Jews having so few cases -  and decided that the Jews were casting spells over the midden dwellers, who caught the plague by the truck load. The odd Jewish case, was seen as some "sort of devious decoy to mislead us".

The decision of the ignorant midden heap majority, wasn't to clean up the stench and rubbish they lived in.

Their solution was simply to exterminate the Jews for "casting spells".  So that is what they tried to do.

Today we have a similar situation.



The medical system knowingly provides to the media their own redefined emotionally loaded words, knowing that the media will use it to unjustifiably beat up on those who refuse to be browbeaten by a medical system which doesn't understand the meaning of the word "choice".

Bookmark and Share