Skip to main content

Letter to the shadow health minister

Here is a copy of an email sent to the Shadow Minister for Health in Australia in response to the withdrawal of the family payment from families who choose not to follow the current vaccine schedule for babies and infants in Australia:

Catherine King, Labor shadow minister for health

Hello Ms King,

I am writing to you to ask whether it is the policy of the Australian Labor party to continue with the Liberal-National policy of withdrawing family support payments from parents who, having performed their due diligence, decide not to allow their young children to receive all the vaccines in the current infant vaccine schedule.

This will determine whether I can lend my support to Labor during the next election, or whether I will have to shift my support to a party that supports health freedom.

XXXXXXXXX, B. Ec. (Hons)

PS. I understand Labor supports the “scientific consensus” on vaccines (the incredibly na├»ve and demonstrably false notion that they are always a good idea, even when given in multiple doses at the same time to a small baby), but this doesn’t equate to withdrawing choice from parents who have a different perspective on health and the integrity of the medical-industrial complex to those uneducated on such matters.

Such an approach goes against basic Labor notions of fairness, and is more in alignment with the elitist, we-know-best paternalism of the Liberal party.

Dr Russell Blaylock speaks on mandatory vaccination: 


Popular posts from this blog

The only meaningful science on vaccines...

Is missing.

What is that science?
Comparing children who receive various regimes of vaccines against those who receive none at all, for a wide variety of health outcomes, over the next 15-20 years of their life, and beyond.
Such studies are not done because they are deemed unethical.

Why unethical? 

Because it is assumed that childhood vaccines do more good than harm, and that the current childhood vaccine schedule is fine, and to deny children vaccines when they are presumed safe and effective would be an act of criminal negligence.
None, because it would be "unethical" to complete the studies that would prove this.

Catch-22, anyone?
Therefore, we don't know if these assumptions about safety and effectiveness are true or not.
And we never will, unless such comparative studies are done. 

And such studies would only be meaningful if conducted by someone without a dog in the fight- that is, not aligned with promoting or resisting community vaccine uptake.

And, as anyone…

Conflict is best avoided

Interpersonal conflict wastes valuable time and energy that could be better devoted to other, more fulfilling things.

Our energies are best spent creating a fulfilling life for ourselves and those we care about, not attempting to destroy another person, group or idea.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the opinions of others are irrelevant in terms of how we wish to live our lives, and how we wish to interpret reality.

That is, we are under no obligation to listen to others or respond to them in any way.
Our lives are our own to create, and no one else's!

If we share a physical space with others, or trade goods and services with them, we will need to come to agreements, but otherwise our life is our own to create, in any way we see fit.

If others don't share our views or support our choices there is no need to fight them on it.
Instead, we must discover what works best for us and practice it, while allowing others the same freedom.

The governments role in health care

"Let the consumer decide, not the government."
The government has a role in freeing up the healthcare market, making sure it is free of collusion and big firms bullying smaller firms out of the market, and in ensuring the poor have access to adequate health care.
Currently, health care is deeply corrupt in the west, with too few companies controlling the market and with governments only exacerbating the situation by providing market protection for these firms.
The end result is high prices and poor products leading to poor health outcomes.
What needs to happen is opening the health care market up to competition by leveling the playing field with the government getting out of the business of picking winners and losers. That is for consumers to decide as they do in other markets, and is based around branding.
Good products and manufacturers will do well as their brand succeeds in the marketplace, while poor and overpriced products and their providers will disappear.

The level pla…