At the beginning of last year I wrote a letter (without picture) to every member of the NSW Upper House regarding an up and coming vote on a Health Bill amendment.
I received only one response to my letter and it was telling me they forwarded my letter to the Heath Minister Julia Skinner, a clear and close minded believer in vaccination.
So I post my letter to ask if you think it justified being ignored.
Dear Honourable Members of NSW Upper House
I am writing to express my will as a constituent, and a parent.
The current Bill set before NSW Parliament regarding vaccination is of not only of deep concern but appears on all fronts part of a wider global initiative to usurp the natural and God given inalienable rights of loving parents to raise children without Government intervention as a facilitator of that loving and right relationship that establishes good upstanding and decent citizenry for the future.
It is my will that you stand against this bill and propose clearly that Parliament cannot legislate on an issue such as this either for one view or against another.
I briefly provide some thoughts upon this matter so as to not incur more of your time than necessary.
The US has a current media campaign where a Dr Paul Offitt, head of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is calling for parents in his paper, “Ending Religious Exemption” advising that those who refuse to vaccinate their children should be investigated for child abuse and neglect.
Scotland has passed legislation that appropriates a Government guardian to every child and who must pay regular visits to all children from birth to 5 years old, then the councils take it up from there.
England has thousands of families currently with CCTV in the homes to observe the times children go to bed, go to school and what they eat breakfast lunch and dinner.
I would hope our Government would not propose that these be the direction our country should go, and more importantly I hope the people would not allow it.
Coincidently we find Bill Gates founder of the Microsoft Corporation, here in Australia and expressing his views in the media weighing in on the issue as a non citizen of Australia, yet had a greater voice than my family does. This makes it clear that this is not about allowing a civilised debate but forcing opinion upon the constituents against their will.
May I quote Mr Gates from his speech given to the TED 2010 conference on vaccination saying
“The world has 6.8 billion people, that’s headed up to 9 billion. Now if we do a real great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services we could lower that by perhaps 10 – 15%.”
Now according to popular belief vaccination and health care should prevent or reduce mortality. But to achieve population reduction via vaccine we are either looking at vaccines causing sterility or death. You cannot make people live longer and or reduce mortality and at the same time reduce population.
There has been a number of examples where tens of thousands of people at a time, have been sterilised world wide with vaccines without their permission.
The debate over vaccination has been an ongoing debate for over 100 years and clearly the first casualty in war is truth.
Jesus said “the love of money is the root of all evil” so this weighs heavily on the Pharmaceutical Corporations providing evidence of efficacy and safety of their products beyond reasonable doubt since they have much profit at stake and so much to loose.
Unfortunately they do not do this.
Instead they provide the very opposite.
In examining the insert of flu shot from the FluLaval Package insert by Glaxo Smith Kline
“This indication is based on immune response elicited by FLULAVAL, and there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL. (1, 14)”
Yet page 3 of the insert states
“5.6 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Vaccination with FLULAVAL may not protect all susceptible individuals.”
This is misleading at best, considering the statement above.
This means that such a release of a vaccine into the public means we have experimentation taking place on unsuspecting human beings.
This violates Appendix 6 of the Nuremberg Code
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
Examining a DTaP vaccine insert it reads
“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.”
Quite obviously the logic being used here to discriminate against the unimmunised is that it is “for the common good”.
A most pernicious and overused justification for all sorts of evil in the world.
In a socialist society this fly’s but not in a supposed democratic country. Yet it is a term being constantly used to justify even when the “common good” element is opposed as a majority.
If this bill is passed it is equally for the common good to retire the unproductive human resources of this society as not sustainable.
In fact it would eventually be deemed “good” to terminate the existence of any person who consumes more than they contribute, since it is well known the above quoted conditions and death does occur from vaccines.
If some must die for the greater good then why do we not still have the death penalty, since some innocent people may die but the common good of reducing crime would be beneficial.
It is clear that science is being used as the driver for ideology.
The United States of America have established within the Department of Justice, a board and a process to compensate victims of adverse affects including death from vaccination.
This is in itself illogical.
And though this is in America, why would they allow the Pharmaceutical Corporations to reap their profits on a product that harms, whilst the constituent tax payer foots the bill for damages the product causes. There seems to be again some convenient protection of the corporations through law that can only come by their lobbying power.
Would it not be more sensible to allow freedom of conscience for each human being that has the capacity to validate the pros and cons of a vague, fuzzy science that uses fuzzy statistics, and leave it up to choice?
It important to note Psalm 94:20-21
“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.”
and Isaiah 32:7
“The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.”
A legal document is also known as a device.
Please consider the importance that the State Government not be seen in the light of potentially behaving as an arm of the Pharmaceutical public relations department and a pedlar of the goods of Pharmaceuticals.
You hold the capacity to restore the good, fair, just and equitable into this issue.
You also have the backing of a large silent crowd of hard working, time poor constituents from both those who do not vaccinate but more importantly even from those who do.
Vaccination is just one piece of silk in a ever growing monstrous web that I have spent 25 years of my 40 years of life investigating.
I respectfully ask you please re-present my will in this matter.
Honourably and Sincerely