Great article! The anti vaccination movement lost most of its credibility, when the principle proponent turned out to be a complete fraud, with forged credentials, rather than the venerable German professor she claimed to be.
If anyone has any doubts about the efficacy of vaccinations, go to a large public hospital during a whooping cough epidemic; and watch very small babies under six months, die a murderously horrible death!
They are to young to vaccinate! And generally too sick to feed, and simply die of extreme exhaustion as much as congested lungs, given they simply can't stop endless coughing!
Watch a couple of these tiny infants die and understand if you can, that those who refuse to vaccinate have done this quite deliberately and knowingly; given, in their refusal to vaccinate, they have turned themselves; and or, their surviving children into carriers of an illness; that all too often has, fatal repercussions for the very young?
And through their extreme ignorance, I believe, have conferred on themselves a right to kill!
All doctors ought to refuse to sign these alluded to documents.
The only doctors on trial here, in the public arena, I believe, have to be the very tiny few, for whatever reason or personal bias/bigotry/personal prejudice/incompetent foreign training, who refuse to vaccinate or treat some TERMINALLY ill patients, with particular or suspected illnesses? Rhrosty.

Quite right.

I was astonished and horrified by one colleague who, after laughing over my disagreement with experts over climate change, when the theory has no track record of any kind, then stating she disagreed with the experts over vaccination, although that procedure has a impressive, provable track record in all but eliminating diseases that once use to kill millions.

Children use to die like flies before the widespread use of vaccination, but a sliver of doubt and suddenly soem people the risks of vaccinating their child is far too great..

I agree that doctors should have the right to refuse to sign against their conscience.

However, why should anyone have to see a doctor in the first place to prevent being assaulted with a needle and harmful substances? What gives anyone in the first place a right to attack other people's bodies (or their children's) against their will?

The government are simply a violent bunch of bullies and as they physically attack people or their children, surely those people under attack have every right for self defense!

Yuyutsu

But is it illegial to refuse vaccination at the moment? If not it should be. Those who refuse vaccinations are increasing the risk for everyone for no reason other than they are into conspiracy theories.

However, I think you'll find its not illegial..

It is not illegal to refuse vaccination. No one is forcing anyone to get vaccinated. There is a legislative requirement for parents of unvaccinated children to provide a legitimate medical reason and/or acknowledgement that they understand the dangers in order to receive certain benefits, or special exemptions (such as for child care) for their children. This is what the forms are for. They are not for subverting the legislation, nor are they for defrauding the system.

The question of a non-vaccination form is to my non legalistic mind nonsense. If a mother does not want her child vaccinated or wants to exempt herself from vaccination sobeit. This is a country that values individual freedom (or used to).
Since when was a doctor required to certify stupidity!

Thank you very much for the information, Martin - I am relieved.

If someone wishes to receive favours from the devil and invite the government into their lives, then they might as well pay the price and it is not necessary to take pity on them.

Curmudgeon,

One's reason to refuse is irrelevant - just as when a lady says 'No', it means NO and she shouldn't have to give a reason. Making a hole in one's body and inserting into it substances which the individual does not approve of, is exactly that - rape!

Those who refuse vaccinations are not increasing any risk, but merely unwilling to volunteer to reduce that risk at the cost of violating their body and/or spirit.

It is your right to seek to reduce that risk, but not through violent means. It is OK to TRY to enlist others' voluntary cooperation, so one possibility for example, would be for those who are eager to reduce the risk of germs to pay/bribe those who do not share that interest into getting vaccinated.

Vaccination is not compulsory.

There is no compulsory vaccination, this is simply a fearmongering strawman lie used by Meryl Dorey so she can stuff her pockets with the maximum amount of money that she can scam from her cult followers with fear and lies.

"The question of a non-vaccination form is to my non legalistic mind nonsense. If a mother does not want her child vaccinated or wants to exempt herself from vaccination sobeit."

Of course you do not actually need to have the "conscientious objector" form signed in order to choose not give your child vaccinations. If you choose not to give your child vaccinations then you simply don't do it and so be it.

What the actual purpose that these "conscientious objector" forms are actually used for by anti-vaccinationists is is to exploit the ridiculous, absurd legal loophole which allows them to claim vaccination incentive payments from Centrelink which are supposed to reward people for taking the time and effort to protect their children and protect public health by taking their children to get vaccinated.

The fact that vaccination denialists and conspiracy theorists are allowed to actually receive those incentive payments despite actually refusing to give their children the vaccinations is absurd.

Yuyutsu

People may/or may not have a reason for refusing. The question is do they have the right to refuse. In this case I would question it - although its highly unlikely that they ever would be compelled - for they are putting others at risk. Think of it as like a epileptic, or someone prone to blackouts, driving a car (there have been cases).. The epileptic's actions puts others at risk.

Although it isn't possible to force people to have vaccinations if they really don't want them, now that I think of it, but it is selfish of them to refuse. It should be a basic obligation of citizenship.

Yuyutsu, the 'rape analogy' is exactly the kind of disrespect to doctors that is as abhorrent as it is ignorant of their profession. First of all, vaccination is not compulsory, therefore when one gets their vaccines, it has to be consented to by the patient, or a guardian of the patient if they are a minor. Because of the scientific evidence that proves that the benefits of vaccination outweighs the risks, it is not child abuse to give a vaccine to a screaming child who doesn't want it if the parent/guardian has consented. Kids will be kids, and fear of the needle is not an uncommon phobia. I have it myself, but I still get my shots.

The 'rape analogy' is a crude attempt at best to put a villainous tune to what is an unquestionably noble profession, and to compare our medical elite to the likes of those that commit actual rape is not just insulting and vulgar, it is belittling to those that are victims of actual rape themselves. Until you have a grasp on what it is that a rape victim goes through, you will never ever be able to compare it to getting vaccinated. They are not the same thing, not even close.

If you want to be taken seriously, stay off the 'rape analogy' please, it is nothing but a vitriolic strawman assault on medical professionals that you know nothing about.

Dear Martin,

Firstly by clarifying that vaccination is not compulsory in Australia I saw the matter as settled.

Secondly, I wasn't accusing any doctors (on the contrary, I even wrote that "I agree that doctors should have the right to refuse to sign against their conscience"), but the government - on the (incorrect) assumption that it makes vaccination compulsory. Doctors do their job, doctors do what doctors have to do - and so long as you are not compelled to have anything to do with them, that's OK.

Thirdly, I never contested the power of parents/guardians to do what they deem is best for their beloved child (although I don't see why it should be conditioned on scientific evidence, which is irrelevant).

Fourthly, I did not compare vaccination with rape - only vaccination against one's will. All I can say is thank God it does not happen in Australia, yet I must stand guard to ensure that it will never happen in the future.

Curmudgeon,

Those who refuse to be vaccinated do not put anyone at risk - the said risk comes from nature and been there all along. If you are upset that some people are not willing to be conscripted into your crusade against nature and fight it just the exact way you like, if you believe that they owe you anything, if you are willing to physically abuse them in order to achieve your end - then think again who is being selfish here!

Yuyutsu,

Those who choose not to have their children vaccinated are still the beneficiaries of herd immunity. It's very easy to be "choosy" in an age where science has enabled us to immunise against what were common and deadly diseases.
There is only one reason parents don't fear the likes of epidemics such as polio and diphtheria these days - and that is because most parents have their children vaccinated.

Dear Poirot,

You are making the dangerous assumption as if everyone has (or should have) the same values and goals for life, and even in the same order of priorities.

I would agree with you that it is contemptible for such a person whose top priority is the desire to avoid the chance of epidemics to cower under the herd-immunity. You must realize however, that different people have other priorities for which they are even willing to risk disease and death.

It would be futile to list here all the possible different values that people may have, but just as an example, some believe that the body is the temple of the soul and must be kept pure and clean of unnatural substances in order to be fit for its proper spiritual purpose. Should death occur while maintaining the body's purity, one will obtain a purer body in their next lifetime, but should the body be contaminated, one would then stray from the path so it would be preferable for them if they died instead.

Dear Enochthered,

I totally agree with your post, except for using the term "vaccination denialists". I don't think there are too many who deny the scientific evidence about the effectiveness of vaccinations for their designated purposes, but as I just explained to Poirot, different people have different values, not necessarily to preserve their (or their child's) biological life at all costs.

Yuyutsu, There are some things that we need to do for the safety of society.

Things like obey the road rules, people cannot choose what side of the road to drive on, if they did death injury and chaos would ensue.

No one is, as you say "being assaulted with a needle and harmful substances?"

What is happening is the community is protecting itself against mass disease death injury and chaos.

Yes we still have a death toll on our roads, Yes we still have the occasional ill effect from vaccination and even very rare deaths but the greater good is that more children ( including your children ) have a better chance of survival.

If vaccination were harmful why would doctors vaccinate their own children and themselves ? Nurses too, all health care profesionals I know insist that their children's vaccinations are up to date and keep their own vaccinations up to date.

If there was some deep dark secret poison lurking in vaccines do you really think doctors and nurses would inject children including their own ?

While I am sure you have been convinced of your beliefs I find it difficult to believe you have ever really explored both sides of the issues involved fairly, rationally and evenly.

May I suggest you do some independent research, not on the web but contact your nursing union and ask how many of their members vaccinate their children.

Ask your local doctors surgery if they vaccinate their children.

It is not a conspiracy it is the truth vaccinations save lives, if you had ever seen polio diphtheria or whooping cough perhaps you would have a better understanding of this concept.

Yuyutsu,

"deeming" what is best for another *without* following the scientific evidence is not *deeming*, it is not judgement, it is not the use of any critical or analytical faculty.

Rusty

Yuyutsu,

"...different people have other priorities for which they are even willing to risk disease and death."

Well that's just dandy if it's merely that their disease and death are in isolation. Decisions of the kind to "not necessarily preserve their (or their child's) biological life at all costs" are not in isolation if that decision impacts the rest of the community.

When whole societies are put at risk because a section of the herd chooses not to partake of the immunity on offer to counter communicable disease, then the herd is imperilled - as we are seeing at the moment in WA with a whooping cough epidemic.

Dear Dug,

<<There are some things that we need to do for the safety of society>>

Who are "we"? Please speak for yourself!

What makes you assume that everyone else is dying to have a society with you, on your own terms of course?

<<What is happening is the community is protecting itself against mass disease death injury and chaos>>

What is happening is that some people, including certain members of OLO, have such strong ambitions for a community that they have no second thought about physically injuring others in order to achieve those ambitions. Fortunately, I am told that the law is not on their side for the moment.

<<but the greater good is that more children (including your children) have a better chance of survival>>

Again, please speak for yourself and not for my children. It seems to be part of your belief-system that survival and human numbers equal goodness. Not mine.

<<If vaccination were harmful than why would doctors vaccinate their own children...>>

I suppose because most doctors share similar views as yourself, considering the sustenance of biological life as top priority. It is doctors' job to sustain biological lives, so they know the technology. I never doubted the scientific findings (this thread is the first time I hear about "conspiracy"), however the question whether or not to vaccinate is a question of values, not a scientific one, including spiritual values which science has no way to discern.

Dear Rusty,

Why should one follow scientific evidence on matters that are not scientific?

The only thing medical-science can tell is how to increase the chances of biological survival, but when considering what's best for another, the survival of their biological body is only one consideration among many.

Clearly there are objectors regarding vaccinations, as there are across a whole range of issues.

Ultimately, I suspect that when it comes to certain diseases, it is reasonable to assume that "deprivation of liberty" or suspension of "legal capacity" to minimise the risk to the majority is also reasonable, but not something to be done lightly.

As to risk though, whilst I am happy to be corrected, I believe there are some vaccines which do come with certain risks. Certainly, a number of doctors I know all raised their eyebrows when I announced that I was off for rabies shots pre travel to Indonesia. And regarding that, why they let people travel without insisting on relevant shots, appropriate insurance and a reading of the smart traveler recommendations is madness to me.

And speaking of madness, once an individual is reasonably suspected of having certain conditions, and as a consequence considered to be a possible risk to themselves or others, if non-compliant with a proposed treatment or diagnostic process, certainly in some states results in the police on their property without so much as a by your leave, or explanation of their activities, or even a declaration of their identity, to be unceremoniously hauled off in the back of a paddy wagon and slung into the locked ward and forcibly treated.

Thus *Yuyutsu* there are indeed exceptions to the law visa vi your ideals, have no doubts about it.

But back to vaccinations, when considering the population as a whole, I believe their is a tiny percent of individuals who do have adverse reactions, and a tiny percent of those cases which can lead to some form of impairment, disability or even death. Of course, I am not aware that our medical science is able to predict this, or if even standard pre vaccination allergy tests for example are even conducted.

To say that this is only a tiny risk to everyone is of course to misunderstand statistics, as some individuals, and without us knowing, will either have a 0% chance of this or alternatively a 100% chance.

Thus, to me, it is not unreasonable that some individuals are concerned to the extent of objecting.

My own daughter is needle phobic, and I needed to sit her on my lap and restrain her in order that she may be vaccinated for requirements above and beyond those of permanent immigration to Australia.

It is not something that I took any great pleasure out of, however ..

Of course, checking the results by way of lab test and seroconversion remains to be done, and something that we are working towards as a family unit.

Dear Poirot,

The herd is imperilled by germs and viruses, not by people. One cannot imperil another by non-action.

Technically I can tell you that if 99% of the people believe in your herd-values (eg. biological survival being first priority) and get vaccinated accordingly, then there's practically no danger from the other 1%, but this is not a technical issue, it is a matter of principle: what gives you or your herd the right to trample on other people's values, including even values which they hold dearer than their own lives, in the name of your herd and your own values, especially people who never asked or consented to be in your herd to begin with?

If you truly consider me and my kind as your enemies or the enemies of your herd, then do the honourable thing and instead of playing with needles, put bullets straight through our heads!

Dear DreamOn,

I agree that it is a reasonable demand, in certain circumstances when someone is seriously suspected of having a contagious condition, for them to remain on their property and not access public space until that condition is over. Access to public space is a privilege, not a right, so it may be denied and this should be a sufficient medical measure to protect "society". It is however a horrifying thought that currently one can be taken for "treatment" against their will, which might violate not only their body but their spiritual integrity as well.

Yuyutsu,

"...put bullets straight through our heads!"

Pathetic argument and pure poppycock.

As for the sustenance of biological life. People who reject immunisation do so for the most part on "biological" grounds. No man is an island where communicable diseases are concerned. It's interesting that these people enjoy living in a community, yet are happy to skate along relying on everyone else's immunity.

"The herd is imperilled by germs and viruses, not by people."

In case you haven't noticed, man has developed the means to provide immunity to certain germs and viruses. Some people choose not to avail themselves or their children of immunity, thereby creating gaps in the immunity of society.

I'm sure your reasoning would go down a treat with the parents of a two month-old baby suffering from whooping cough. This baby needs to have multiple vaccines over a six month period before it is immune - so your "there's practically no danger" might sound a bit hollow to them.

The debate over the last 4 pages is so dogmatic, every writer appearing to be 100 per cent certain they are right.
There is a lot we don't know about vaccination because there is so precious little 'high-quality' research conducted. I mean real, randomized, controlled, double blinded studies. The case for efficacy and safety of all vaccines seems to have been decided, in many people's minds, 100 years ago. Science should not operate like a blind-faith religion.
I don't claim to know all the answers. What is most likely is that some vaccines work well, some less well, and some are almost useless. Unfortunately we keep using the useless ones for decades longer than we should because of inadequate monitoring; the 'head in the sand', blind-faith attitude.
I do wish that GPs would know more about the vaccines they dispense. Queries like "does this one contain mercury or aluminium?" are usually met with blank stares. The dispensers of vaccines would gain more respect if they had rigorous, thorough knowledge of what they are dispensing.

Dear Poirot,

"pathetic argument and pure poppycock"

It seems that not only you have no intention of honouring people with values other than your own, but cannot even honour yourself by fair fighting.
If I am indeed your enemy, then shoot me, act like a lion and not like a hyena.

I already condemned (Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 10:58:26 PM) those who reject immunisation solely on biological grounds, yet still wish to benefit from others' immunity. Your mentioning it again probably means that you didn't care to read my answers.

It seems that you still do not understand the meaning of non-action: nobody can create a gap by not acting. There is a fundamental difference between declining to help others vs. doing something against them. Your assumption that others MUST fulfill your desires, is childish.

The statement that if 99% of the population are immunized, then the unimmunised 1% do not pose a risk, comes from the doctors, not from myself. I mentioned it because if you are thinking rationally, then it may allay your fears, not because it makes any difference to me.

Dear DrKnowalittle,

There may well be those who doubt the scientific claim that vaccination is [medically-]safe. They may possibly even be right - completely or partially. There is also no doubt that the metal packaging currently used for vaccines - mercury or aluminium, is bad for health.

However, I don't come from that camp and my position does not depend on scientific findings, whatever they may be. All I stand for here, is for the absolute autonomy of the individual over their own body and over their spiritual integrity as well as for freedom of association, sanctioning one's free choice to belong or otherwise to any given group of other people (including the so-called "society").

Yuyutsu,

It makes no difference what grounds people reject immunisation - the outcome is the same. You condemn those who do so on biological grounds , yet sanction others who do so on spiritual grounds. They "both" benefit from herd immunity.

My "pathetic argument" comment was directed in the main at your parting comment to "put bullets straight through our heads" request - and now "then shoot me". Both comments could best be described as a tad hysterical and not quite balanced. But I've debated you before and you seem to excel at leading yourself and your opponents around in circles, tripping over your own curious logic and contradicting yourself with gay abandon...I should know by now not to waste my time with someone who invents new rules as the discussion progresses.

My main concern is that apathy is likely to grow in a society complacent about immunity and neglectful of the consequences of a lack of vigilance.

Returning to the conscientious objector form, I'd say the doctor in question did exactly the right thing. To put her signature on a piece of paper certifying that the mother was aware of the dangers of not immunising her child, she needs to know that the mother IS aware. Otherwise, she is signing away on a lie. If the mother refused to listen to the doctor's expert knowledge, the doctor would have no way of knowing with any real certainty that the mother DID know the dangers.

Out of interest, Yuyutsu, if forcing immunisation on someone is the equivalent of rape, then surely refusing to be immunised and then knowingly socialising with others, ultimately spreading illness, is the equivalent of willfully infecting them with a disease (and therefore assault)? In that case, the conscientious objector's form would be a vital piece of evidence in their prosecution.

>>surely those people under attack have every right for self defense!<<

Couldn't agree more yuyutsu. People with very young children who are not yet immunised against some horrible and potentially fatal diseases have every right to protect themselves from people who refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children. And I'm afraid this argument doesn't cut it:

>>The herd is imperilled by germs and viruses, not by people. One cannot imperil another by non-action.<<

Fail. You can imperil people by non-action. By getting vaccinated you get immunity to some diseases which means you cannot get infected and cannot infect other people without immunity. The only people who can infect other people without immunity - such as infants - are those who are not vaccinated. You are not just putting your children at risk: your are deliberately putting other people's children at risk by potentially turning your children into plague carriers. What the hell gives you the right to do that?

>>Again, please speak for yourself and not for my children. It seems to be part of your belief-system that survival and human numbers equal goodness. Not mine.<<

Please speak for yourself and not other people's children. It seems to be a part of your belief-system that negligent homicide is all hunky-Dorey. Not mine.

TBC

>>what gives you or your herd the right to trample on other people's values, including even values which they hold dearer than their own lives, in the name of your herd and your own values, especially people who never asked or consented to be in your herd to begin with?<<

Again we are in agreement Yuyutsu: what gives you the right to trample on the values of those who value their children's lives more than absurd spiritualist claptrap, in the name of your herd and your own values, especially who never asked or consented to be in your herd to begin with? What gives you the right to put other people in harms way through your own selfish actions or inactions?

>>There is also no doubt that the metal packaging currently used for vaccines - mercury or aluminium, is bad for health.<<

Mercury packaging? Now this is something I've got to see. XD

I doubt they use aluminium as a packaging material either: probably glass or plastic. But aluminium is used as packaging for lots of other things like drink cans and it is quite safe: aluminium is remarkably non-toxic.

As for the article: more power to the good doctor. Martin: next time you see them give them a big thumbs up for me and tell them to keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Tony

Yuyutsu & Tony Lavis
The mercury and aluminium in some vaccines is not from packaging - don't know how that crept into the posts. They are deliberate ingredients. The mercury is thimerosal, a preservative, and aluminium hydroxide and aluminium sulphate are in some vaccines such as whooping cough, as I understand.

These toxic agents really should not be injected into infants with their undeveloped blood-brain barrieer and general defenses against heavy metals. It would be far better if vaccines were made without these potentially harmful additives. Cheapness is probably the factor, the mercury preservative may give them longer shelf life.

And of course Yuyutsu is absolutely correct about no state authority having the right to inject medication into people against their will. Surely in a country like Australia, where successive generations have given their lives in wars supposedly to protect our freedoms and liberty, no person is going to start suggesting compulsory, state-enforced medication, ah la Nazi Germany or the society of Orwell's book 1984.

Dear Poirot,

Your own doctors tell that there's a difference regarding reasons not to vaccinate, because those translate into percentages, and percentages so-THEY-say, matter (not to me, I stick to principles, but it matters for them).

Concerned about apathy? You think others have no real reasons to refuse vaccination but apathy? then why not pay them to get vaccinated? surely they won't be apathetic to money! Classic market situation where you're a consumer seeking a product they can produce!

Dear Otokonoko,

I agree that the doctor did right.

Knowingly socialising with others who are concerned about immunization while allowing them to assume that I'm vaccinated (though I'm not), is a form of fraud and should be dealt with accordingly (nothing wrong however about socialising with others who don't mind). If it ever reaches criminal-court, then standard evidence-procedures apply.

Dear Tony,

The key point is the difference between action and non-action. Germs and diseases are part of nature, they are the default: if you go actively to fight them, the onus is on you to avoid injuring others on the way.

If a non-vaccinated person enters your space (private or public), carrying germs without your permission, then they are the violators and you should be able to shoot them.

If you enter the space of a non-vaccinated family and attempt to forcibly vaccinate them or their children, then you are the violator and they should be able to shoot you.

If I enter your space against your will and cause fatal infection, then I'm guilty of homicide, if not even murder.

If you enter my space and forcibly vaccinate me or my children, then you are guilty of an atrocity equivalent to rape.

If I visit your space asking for favours, then it's your right to impose conditions, including to be vaccinated.

If you force me to visit your space (for example a school, that being a crime on its own), where I never asked to go, then you're a brute and have no moral right to demand anything.

Aluminium is commonly associated with Alzheimer.

Forgive my brevity, I'm out-of-posts, back-Sunday.

>>The mercury is thimerosal<<

Thimerosal is no longer used in childhood vaccines.

>>aluminium hydroxide and aluminium sulphate are in some vaccines such as whooping cough, as I understand.<<

Not the ones I looked at. Although there was one that had aluminium phosphate. I wouldn't worry too much about any of these compounds: aluminium sulfate and phosphate are both used in baking powder. Aluminium hydroxide is used in antacid tablets - probably in a much greater dose than what you'd find in a vaccine. It seem unlikely that these compounds are highly toxic.

Cheers,

Tony

T Lavis
" I wouldn't worry too much about any of these compounds: aluminium sulfate and phosphate are both used in baking powder. Aluminium hydroxide is used in antacid tablets - probably in a much greater dose than what you'd find in a vaccine."

Love your breathtaking confidence, but it may be misplaced. 2 month old babies are not regularly exposed to antacid tablets, or even baking powder. Aluminium and mercury are orders of magnitude more toxic (in mg per kg bodyweight) for infants than for children, adolescents or adults. Infants have a very undeveloped blood-brain barrier. Minute amounts of these toxic metals are harmful for infants under 12 months, and at that age they can have received many vaccines.

And by the way, thimerosal (mercury) should have been banned for all child vaccines, but it still finds its way into some of them. Do not take it on blind faith, check every one rigorously. That was the subject of my first post in this debate - doctors mostly seem unable to tell you what is in the vaccines they dispense. It should be incumbent upon them to know everything about their drugs so that they can participate in the 'informed consent' process with patients.

I reckon that blank stare you get is them thinking "oh crap it's one of them again. How do I handle this?"...

While we're at it, these listed below appear to be stated as facts. Got some data to back these up Drknowalittle?

" Aluminium and mercury are orders of magnitude more toxic (in mg per kg bodyweight) for infants than for children, adolescents or adults."

And...

"Infants have a very undeveloped blood-brain barrier. Minute amounts of these toxic metals are harmful for infants under 12 months..".

Data please. There must be plenty of data on the toxicity of vaccine adjuvants and heavy metals for these statements to said so strongly.

Interestingly, I find "Yuyutsu's" posts to be the first I have ever read that leads me to support his position on anti-vaccination.

I believe the Science and have been vaccinated (recently Hep A&B) but have told my partner if I ever need blood from a transfusion, to make sure it is refused and I am left to die. I have never given blood and it would be the the ultimate hypocrisy to take any, she gives regularly. She is mortified and confused by that decision and is not even sure if she can follow it if push comes to shove, so I have every empathy for the position Yuyutsu takes.

I do see a difference however, it never places any fellow human beings at risk, in fact quite the opposite they may be able to harvest my organs and help someone.

I would just like to jump in here a moment, in regards to vaccine chemicals.

There are several methods of injection or infusion, including intradermal, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, intraosseous, and intraperitoneal. Vaccines are delivered intramuscular, not intravenous. Any concerns about mercury in the bloodstream, therefore, are unfounded.

Aluminium is present in breastmilk, so I wonder if your concerns in regards to aluminium extend to starving newborns. As for thiomersal.

Thiomersal is an organomercury compound, much like salt is a sodium compound. Like salt, thiomersal takes on different properties to its molecular ingredients. Wouldn't it be unfortunate if when we consumed salt, we exploded? Sodium, after all, reacts violently with water, which makes up most of our bodies. In fact, if you touch pure sodium, it burns like hell. I know, I've done it, in science class at school... I was dared, and young. But that's beside the point.

Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults. Ethylmercury is eliminated from the brain in about 14 days in infant monkeys. Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16973445

What this says is that yes, thiomersal is toxic. Unfortunately, so is everything else. Including water. Too much water can cause hyponatremia. Just like water, however, there are safe levels of thiomersal that the human body dispenses with quite easily.

As for how an infant's body handles these chemicals compared to an adult, don't let their size fool you. Here is a link to a page that helps explain it in layman's terms.

http://www.answers.com/topic/immune-system-development

I would recommend, however, if this isn't enough for you, that you stop breastfeeding. Because there is a lot of stuff in breastmilk that you might not like going in to your baby's body without knowing what it might do, including trace amounts of formaldehyde that the human body produces as a byproduct of various biological processes.

Yuyutsu,

I find your response pathetic.

Our current law acknowledges no greater consideration than life and it's convenient continuation. Vaccination is a clear method of doing so. Those individuals with medical reasons to decline can document the fact.

Please specify the "Higher considerations" you hypothesise and the manner in which they are enhanced by reduced probability of survival, especially in childhood.

In the meantime, by all means, please reduce your probability of survival in favour of such considerations. I suspect our culture will benefit.

Rusty.

Dear Rusty,

I find your response violent.

<<Our current law acknowledges no greater consideration than life and it's convenient continuation.>>

Convenient... to whom?

Understandably you wish everything was according to your convenience, but occasionally things that are convenient to you can be very inconvenient to others. Enforcing your conveniences on others anyway, is nothing but violence.

Fortunately, so I learnt from this thread, even the current Australian law does not allow you to vaccinate people against their will. I fight here that it will stay this way.

<<Please specify the "Higher considerations" you hypothesise and the manner in which they are enhanced by reduced probability of survival, especially in childhood.>>

I already wrote (Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:58:26 PM) that "It would be futile to list here all the possible different values that people may have" (as their number could be as high as the number of individuals in question), yet I provided one example there anyway.

The point is that nobody is REDUCING your survival probability, all that those people who refuse to get vaccinated do is to refuse to INCREASE that probability for you. Suppose for example that you approach a beautiful lady and ask her to help you increase your probability of progeny (which must be highly advantageous to your convenient continuation): if she says 'No', then it's a NO and she is not required to give you her 'higher considerations' for doing so. Fortunately, according to current Australian law (and so it should stay!), if you proceed on the grounds that her considerations were not justified enough, then you will end up in court for rape.

*Yuyutsu*

" ... even the current Australian law does not allow you to vaccinate people against their will. I fight here that it will stay this way. ... "

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that in its entirety *YuYutsu* Whilst I concede that it may be correct, it wasn't substantiated, thus for me at least, it remains unknown until I cannot witness the evidence.

The reason I say that is that whilst you may be opposed to be being compelled visa vi vaccinations, I would suggest that you be at peace about that, as there are a host of areas in the Australian law which can compel you.

I have already cited one example for you, but the core of what underpins that is when an individual is considered to be a danger to themselves or others.

Thus, when it comes to vaccinations, and especially when considering say some the nastier air born varieties, I would not be surprised to know that there are certain exceptions to the rule of being able to voluntarily opt out of any vaccination program.

Another example is court room rules, where if you do not stand up before the wig parasite, you may be found in contempt and receive a monkey house penalty regardless of whether you have done anything wrong visa vi the charges or not.

And of course, it is compulsory for kids to go to school, but if you refuse vaccinations the school can refuse to admit your kids resulting in a situation where you end up with child protection on your doorstep.

Ever read abut our so called Australian "Death Islands" where the Original Australians post rape (in some instances no doubt) and being infected with S.T.D.'s were rounded up against their will and left to die agonising deaths?

I could go on.

As to whether this has the potential to induce psychic shock in you is a matter for you only as long as you are judged to retain "legal capacity."

Dear DreamOn,

I am glad you care!

I didn't know myself that compulsory vaccination was illegal in Australia - but I learnt about it from various kind souls in this thread.

Yes, compulsory schooling is wrong, but fortunately in Australia it is mitigated by the fact that you can elect for home-schooling, or private schools, or even open your own little school by the joint effort of a few parents with of a similar belief-system.

Yes, there are a host of areas in the Australian law which can compel you - so I am doing what I can to fight that.

I see no problem with laws that compel people to not harm or endanger others (without their consent), but I reject the notion that the state has any right to compel people to not harm or endanger themselves (and others who consent to being harmed or endangered by them).

As for nasty germs, it should in principle be acceptable for the state to deny potential carriers (eg. non-vaccinated people) access to public spaces, so they must in that case remain on their property (or on the property of others who do not mind). Unlike forced vaccination, this is a measured response which solves the problem without violence. Nevertheless, I think that the state should only exercise this right in extreme cases such as serious epidemics.

All states/countries make such evil laws to one extent or another, without any moral authority. There is so much to improve and the road ahead is long, but looking at the half-full glass, Australia is probably at the better half, not as bad as most - at least Australia is free of the very-worst state-abuse of all - conscription. I wouldn't have come to live here and wouldn't stay here for one day otherwise.