New Health Legislation to Spark Rebellion in Oz?

This article is copyrighted by Global Freedom Movement. Visit our Re-post guidelines

public health amendment

Source: https://globalfreedommovement.org/witch-hunt-and-health-legislation-to-spark-rebellion-in-oz/

What Happened to Australia?

Yesterday (September 8, 2017) three police officers and ten AHPRA investigators raided Dr John Piesse’s office in Melbourne, Victoria in a spectacular gesture of authoritarian overkill and a continuation of the witch hunt against Australia’s version of Andrew Wakefield. Why were they there? Was he raping patients? Had he killed someone? Was he incorrectly administering or prescribing medical treatments? Was he breaking the law at all? No, no, and no again. He was just obeying the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm,” by providing vaccine exemptions for local families with health concerns.

In fact, he was merely doing his job.

Why the heavy-handedness then? It’s axiomatic that if you “follow the money” you usually end up close to establishing behavioural motives in these types of situations. There is an ideological element too, and Piesse made the “mistake” of sharing some of his professional heretical activities on film where government inquisitors might pass by and take exception. (Piesse has in fact been on the radar of the Medical Inquisition for many years.)

The raid on Piesse’s office comes on the heels of an established pattern of increasing attacks on freedom of speech and medical choice in Australia – a disturbing regressive trend that has been markedly intensifying of late. This systemic onslaught, however, has begun to raise the curiosity of even the sleepy-eyed and usually indifferent. Things are starting to look less than entirely rosy Down Under and people are starting to wonder why.

Now let’s go back in time a little and we will see that what is happening to Piesse has been coming for some time. It should concern us all.

Public Health Amendment (Vaccination of Children Attending Child Care Facilities) Bill 2017

In April this year (2017), a bill to amend the Public Health Act 2010 was introduced into the Australian political machinery on motion by Walt Secord shadow Minister for Health, NSW. Its focus was on tightening up childhood vaccination practices and closing available exemption loopholes. This article is a rational, factual response to erroneous claims made by Secord in his reading of the bill, and it also highlights the disturbing key elements of the proposed legislation:

The bill is for an Act to amend the Public Health Act 2010 to prevent unvaccinated children being enrolled at childcare facilities if the only reason that they are unvaccinated is a parent’s personal beliefs… (Public Health Amendment [Vaccination of Children Attending Child Care Facilities] Bill 2017)

Secord unreservedly registered his disdain for non-vaccinating parents and reiterated the “need” to prevent parents from not vaccinating. Secord’s sentiments are deeply paternalistic and anti-democratic at root. He is plainly pushing in the direction of medical fascism – something Nazi Germany knew a little something about. His comments – and the contents of the proposed bill – may yet set off an unexpected chain reaction of dissent and rebellion within the Australian public – “unexpected” to these out-of-touch and arrogant politicians don’t seem to suspect the levels of suspicion and disgust they are currently fostering with increasingly draconian and coercive legislation, as well as patronising and inflammatory comments like this gem:

…it is not the healthy children of New South Wales we need to encourage—it is their ill-informed and ill‑advised parents

If “ill-informed” parents are the issue here then why is it that the most affluent and highly educated suburbs are the ones increasingly shunning vaccination?1

public health amendment

 

An underlying premise of yours, Walt, seems to be that “doctors know better than parents,” but did you know there are hundreds of doctors – with mainstream training and backgrounds – that are highly critical of vaccination, if not outright opposed? How do we rationalise their opposition to vaccination? And why is the list of trained physicians with strong reservations about vaccination growing instead of shrinking?1

By your (admittedly inconsistent) standards, they are all medical “experts,” so who is “more expert” and who should be deferred to as an authority? Are the “true” medical authorities who are to be trusted simply those working for the AMA and other government or industry bodies? Is someone’s opinion only valid if they occupy an establishment position and espouse the establishment dogma, thus perpetuating the status quo?

How do we rationalise the increasing number of doctors who reject vaccination?

I’ll give you a hint: Those medicos highly critical of or downright opposed to vaccination are that way because they took it upon themselves to study the subject in depth in their own time and at their own expense. This, they will tell you, is necessary because of the dearth of good information they receive at medical school on vaccination. What they DO receive is repetition of the mantra of “safe and effective” and “got rid of polio”, etc., etc.

 

The popular mythology is reinforced, history is forgotten, and dissidents are ridiculed. Join the herd or face its wrath. Students are most definitely not encouraged to research for themselves and they certainly do not have time to regardless. Thus, they enter the medical profession as doctors equally clueless as they entered medical school, at least when it comes to vaccination.

Read Secord’s words carefully, parents of Australia:

It is now necessary to ban the setting up of specialist anti-vaccination childcare centres in New South Wales. Labor’s bill also makes it an offence for a principal or operator to enrol a child at a childcare facility or at home-based child care without a vaccination certificate or a medical contraindication certificate. The maximum penalty for a principal or operator will be $5,500. (Emphasis added.)

Only $5.5 K? Why not $50 K, Walt? It seems that if you’re going to engage in revenue raising you might as well go for broke and really look to financially break people. If they can’t pay then perhaps a public flogging would send the right message to non-conformists? We could tar and feather them too for good measure.

Our pharma-loving pollies – who believe every word issued by multinational for-profit pharmaceutical giants – are cracking down on doctors who are issuing exemptions. Provisions are being made to make it harder on doctors to provide them. Moreover, government is creating more leeway for itself to micromanage doctors and put heat on them by demanding patient’s medical records – presumably so it can assess a doctor’s level of commitment to the Cult of Jabism(and punish accordingly if faith is lacking), as well as ascertain details of non-vaccinating families – and presumably find a way to force them to vaccinate if they have been avoiding it with the doctor’s assistance.

public health amendment

 

The Public Health Amendment (Review) Bill 2017 includes the following delightful items:

[19] Section 55 (4) and (5)
Omit the subsections. Insert instead:
(4) Subject to section 56, any medical practitioner involved in the treatment of the person concerned must, at the request of the Secretary, provide the Secretary with:
(a) such information as is necessary to complete or correct a report that appears to be incomplete or incorrect, and
(b) such other information concerning the person’s medical condition and transmission and risk factors as is available to the medical practitioner.
(5) A registered medical practitioner must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with such a request. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units. (Emphasis added.)
Secord’s rhetoric about the bill relies on all of the usual (debunked) vaccination memes and slogans. Below, the “science is settled” line gets trotted out once more – it’s a favourite of people who prefer the collectivist mentality to individualism (and make no mistake: mandatory vaccination iscollectivist “medicine”):

Vaccine refusal supports personal opinion—not the opinion of the child, but of the parent, who is not an expert. There is no scientific or medical debate on this: That is settled. The jury is in. Vaccinations work and they save lives.

Again the fallacy of “the expert whom we (the non-experts) are to bow down to (as long as they support the status quo).” This is to say nothing of the fallacy of truth by “consensus.” (There IS no consensus.) Walt, don’t you know that most vaccine studies are NOT randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled studies a.k.a. the “gold standard”?

public health amendment

Walt, you dismiss “non-experts” (those without “qualifications”) and yet fail to acknowledge that hundreds of doctors and scientists around the world (those with “qualifications”) completely disagree with you – based on their own clinical observations and/or research. I would also point out the irony of you acting as judge, jury, and executioner here on the issue, declaring all debate over by fiat and yet doing so without any medical qualifications! That is a textbook case of hypocrisy in action, Sir, not to mention the fact that you are supporting tobacco science here and telling people “the jury is in.”

Why should any self-respecting parent listen to you if, according to your own (admittedly inconsistent) logic, you are one of the lowly plebeians without medical qualifications? You have a BA – so what? It will be plainly evident to all of Australia’s parents with vaccine-damaged children that you have not done your homework here. We know that most trained medical practitioners also have not – they prefer their beliefs over inconvenient evidence. Asking parents to blindly trust those so-called “experts” when they have a seriously vaccine-injured child will not fly.

Get connected with the vaccine-injured pro-choice community and you may risk learning something of worth. Learning takes humility, however. Are you comfortable with that?

Secord then maligns all well-researched parents who conscientiously object and happen to agree with the aforementioned medical heretics (the “medical expert” vaccine un-believers) with this line:

Personal choices that needlessly deny medical treatment to children have a name—child neglect.

Is it not neglectful to subject children to an invasive medical procedure without first studying the topic and performing due diligence? This may take months, but is a child’s life not worth that? (This is why future parents need to begin their investigation WELL before the birth of their child, no matter how much the government disapproves.) And what if that procedure or intervention is legally deemed “unavoidably unsafe” as vaccination is in the USA? Who is neglectful then when they go ahead and MANDATE it?

public health amendment

 

Parents who reject vaccination are probably very aware (in contrast to “our” politicians), that in the USA, the VICP has paid out over $3.6 billion in injury compensation over its 30 year lifetime (and counting). The 3,000 recipients of payouts represent but the smallest sliver of the broader injured population. Unfortunately for the public, the system is heavily weighted against anyone seeking injury compensation, beginning with incompetent and biased doctors who refuse to connect the dots and acknowledge a vaccine injury (and report it) even when it stares them in the face in their own clinic.

Most people never even file a claim, most injuries do not even get properly recorded, and most people who file claims do not make it through the gauntlet to a payout – not because they have not been genuinely harmed, but because the system is designed more to protect Big Pharma and the status quo (the “good name” of vaccination) than to serve justice to those injured by these money-driven corporations whose multi-billion dollar business model factors injury in to the cost of doing business.

Are you not aware that vaccine inserts list a wide range of possible adverse outcomes (your “expert” doctors and nurses don’t read them, by the way) ranging from soreness at the injection site, all the way through to seizures, encephalitis, autism and then death? Note: They are observed outcomes, not theoretical postulates. They are included in the fine print by manufacturers as a legal measure to cover themselves. They know these products generate damage and they tell us in the inserts so that parents cannot come back and litigate ex post facto for their injured children – not that most doctors have bothered looking. Did you?

public health amendment

Note: It is estimated by investigators that between no more than 5 – 10% of vaccine injuries even get reported in the VAERS. Former FDA commissioner David Kessler has been quoted saying that “only one percent of serious adverse events are reported to the FDA.” (emphasis added)

In Australia we too lack an effective vaccine injury reporting system (just ask the parents of injured children). This creates an ostensible “absence of evidence (of harm)” which feeds the collective delusion that vaccine injuries are rare. I personally have lost count of all the people (both adults and children) that I have connected with in recent years who have experienced severe and lasting vaccine injury. They are only “rare” if your head is buried in the sand and you don’t want to see them.

Perhaps, Walt, you would not be so dogmatic and zealous if your partner or child had been brain-damaged or paralysed by a vaccine. One can only wonder how someone like Karen Kain must feel listening to your pompous vaccine evangelism. Karen’s daughter Lorrin was seriously damaged by vaccination and is now dead (Lorrin and Karen below). In the interest of brevity, I have refrained from listing dozens and dozens of such tragic cases. They are far from isolated.

public health amendment

 

And yet, perhaps we should give you credit for your candidness as you make no attempt at masking the escalating and invasive interference of the State in the business of the family that your proposed amendment will bring if it is passed:

To those who will argue that this is the State interfering in parental choices, I will be very clear: Yes, we are interfering in parental choices.

Thanks for clearing that up, Walt. Interfering in parental choice without adequate evidence in favour – and massive amounts of evidence against such a move – may result in adverse litigation against you and others pushing these Orwellian measures. Are you up for that? Do not underestimate the resolve of a parent betrayed by modern medicine (and sleazy politicians) – let alone, thousands of them.

Secord so desperately wants the exemption loophole closed that it is starting to look highly suspicious and not altogether “altruistic” – despite his contrived rhetoric about “protecting the children” (perhaps he just doesn’t like it when people don’t agree with him?):

…the anti-vaxxer loophole deeply privileges personal opinion in the face of all medical, scientific and policy evidence. It never should have been opened by the previous Minister for Health, and it certainly needs to be closed.

No, what the “loophole” does, Sir, is it simply preserves a modicum of medical and personal freedom (something you clearly do not grasp the importance of). It allows a parent to protect their child from unnecessary and invasive medical procedures. (How does a conscientious parent determine whether a given medical intervention is dangerous? They do exactly what we are all discouraged from doing by our political and medical prostitutes: they investigate.)

Pictured below: Vaccine-injured Saba Button who lost the ability to walk and talk following a single flu jab in 2010. The family received $10 million in compensation and CSL’s Fluvax was recalled and is now banned for children under five in Australia. Saba requires around the clock care now. Isn’t it nice to know these things are so thoroughly safety tested before being unleashed on us?

public health amendment

 

But there is no debate to be had according to our rotund Lord Secord:

I do not wish to add to the perception that there is any debate about it from any evidence-based framework.

You speak of “perception,” Walt, and yet your logic is the standard skein of pro-vax fallacies, slogans, and buzzwords. From an evidence-based framework, there is, in fact, no reason at all to mandate vaccination to any degree whatsoever (Sweden just rejected it, sensibly). Read on so that I can clear up some of your mis-perceptions and show you why, Walt.

Across the northern New South Wales local health district the vaccination rates for children under the age of two is just 84.9 per cent.
That is the worst local health district in the State.
Just yesterday I read about a measles outbreak in Romania where the national vaccination rate is at 86 per cent.

A vaccination rate of 86% used to be considered by some as robust. If the national vaccination rate in Romania is 86% and they are still enduring outbreaks, then logically we have to concede the possibility that high vaccination rates do not magically procure the coveted “herd immunity” which, historically, used to derive “naturally” through populations contracting diseases and the subsequent enhancement of the immune response – an effect which vaccination seeks to mimic, with dismal results.

public health amendment

 

In fact – and I realise this is anathema to the Cult of Jabism – but we have to consider the possibility that mass vaccination actually drives outbreaks where none were likely to occur. Numerous students of medical history have pointed this out. For instance, the town of Leicester in England instituted compulsory vaccination only to endure its worst ever smallpox epidemic. They persisted with it, thinking that they merely needed to tighten things up a bit and vaccinate more stringently. This led to the next even worse epidemic of smallpox. Still not convinced of the daftness of this policy, members of the Cult of Jabism persisted in the wishful thinking around mandatory vaccination, and sure enough, thus followed the third and most severe epidemic of all.

public health amendment

Fortunately for all concerned, the citizens of Leicester abandoned compulsory vaccination at this point, realising that more jabs do not equal more protection. Quite the opposite.

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, Secord and co. blame “anti-vaxxers” for “wanting to bring back smallpox,” and other silliness, and yet, history shows clearly that it is the pro-vaxxers who are the real pro’s at it.

public health amendment

 

And yes, that goes for whooping cough too.

(Below: Typical pro-vax logic in action. Vaccinated children get whooping cough and somehow that proves vaccination is just so vital? WTF?)

public health amendment

 

This leads into Secord’s next comment/fallacy:

we need to have a herd immunity rate of about 95 per cent so that we can provide a form of indirect protection from infectious disease [No evidence cited.]

Ah, the magical shape-shifting herd immunity figure. It seems to change with the seasons. And there is never any evidence presented in support of the “magic number.” Is it 88% ? 90%? 95%? 99%? The “protective bubble” idea we currently entertain stems from a bastardization of the traditional herd immunity concept which had nothing at all to do with vaccines. The fact that disease epidemics regularly follow in the wake of mass vaccination campaigns seems to elude our “honourable” MPs.

public health amendment

 

What seemingly all politicians in the major parties fail to realise is that our major woes with “vaccine-preventable” diseases were more or less resolved by environmental engineering (sanitation and water filtration) and improvements in personal hygiene and nutrition – along with antibiotics and control strategies such as quarantine. Mass vaccination merely resulted in altered forms of the diseases it was supposed to prevent  – a seeming contradiction we are still collectively doing our best to avoid recognising.

Below: One month old Ayashi Gupta died hours after being vaccinated in February 2013 with Hep B, DPT, and oral polio (the “P” is for pertussis/whooping cough, folks). Statistically it is unlikely she ever would have “caught” whooping cough had she simply remained unvaccinated. Instead she paid with her life for a needless though sacrosanct medical ritual.

public health amendment

Then Walt, not satisfied with his already astronomical asininity, positively wets his pants over tetanus:

Just last month it was reported that for the first time in decades a tetanus case had emerged in a seven-year-old girl in northern New South Wales—that is truly terrifying.

Terrifying? Get it together, mate. A single case of tetanus (for the first time in decades, no less) terrifies you? How about the roughly 47,500 children left paralysed in 2011 with “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” (translation: vaccine-induced polio) in India following the mass polio vaccination campaign?

No, what IS terrifying is the idea that overfed bureaucrats and dogmatic medical professionals are so hell bent on removing freedom of choice, freedom of control over our bodies, and freedom to protect our children from iatrogenic disease and incompetent doctors and politicians who don’t even bother to read the literature or listen to bereaved parents.

public health amendment

 

Secord’s comment is almost amusing when you realise he is terrified of a “disease” that, by his own admission, has not appeared in “decades” – how dangerous would that make it then, Walt? Not very fucking dangerous is my guess.

Only the ignorant are “terrified” of tetanus. Why? It is merely a bacterium that resides in the bowels or guts of animals. It is said that tetanus also resides in soil, but kids have been playing in the dirt and getting cuts and grazes for centuries with barely a hint of an issue, so, a) how widespread is it in the soil?, and, b) if it’s ubiquitous (for argument’s sake), then obviously it isn’t all that potent. The microbes in soil are now considered to be one healthy way to stimulate and develop a child’s immune system. Unless you’re sharing a stable or a toilet with a horse or cow, you’re probably pretty safe from tetanus, Walt. Take the “terror” down a notch, chief.

On top of that, if, on the vanishingly small chance that your bloodstream may have actually come into contact with tetanus and its nervous system toxin tetanospasmin (and is, for some reason, at risk of being overwhelmed), you should know this: the tetanus vaccine (given as part of the DTaP three-in-one) cannot generate a quick enough immune (antibody) response to be of any use whatsoever. It would need to be administered about two weeks or more beforeexposure.

Oops. Maybe that’s why Walt is so terrified? Maybe he just doesn’t know that tetanus is anaerobic and a good dose of hydrogen peroxide on a wound should kill it off easily. The fact that the vaccine is useless doesn’t really matter in the end. We don’t need it. There are ALWAYS other options.

The indefatigable Lord Secord then asks:

How can we continue to accept that parents in an affluent and fortunate country such as Australia would choose not to vaccinate their children?

Easy, Walt, here’s how. I’ll make it simple for you.

You get informed. You get off your high horse, stop preaching, humble yourself, and connect with the (very pissed off) vaccine-injured community that the medical system insults every day by pretending it doesn’t exist. You listen to the professionals who are directly witnessing the carnage vaccination causes.

While some people say there are “no stupid questions,” I would beg to differ on this occasion. The question you pose reveals the truly comprehensive and chronic ignorance suffered by most doctors and politicians. The clue is in the wording:

In an “affluent and fortunate country,” people tend to live in conditions not of squalor, malnutrition, and destitution – which breed disease – but of relative comfort and health.They have toilets that flush their stools away so they don’t have to live in their own feces or drink cholera-contaminated water. They have (relatively) clean water and, for the most part, access to the “primary” food groups that support at least a minimally robust state of health. They have reasonable standards of personal hygiene. They do not live in overcrowded conditions. Outbreaks occur in populations without these conditions – and, as examples like Leicester show us (and we could list plenty more), outbreaks also tend to occur in highly vaccinated populations – in contradistinction to your fallacious claim that less vaccinated populations are “at risk.”

public health amendment

 

If our children need more vaccines and not less, then how do we explain America – the nation that vaccinates its newborns more aggressively than any other – having an infant mortality rate that is so abysmal? (Ranked down in the thirties at last check.) Shouldn’t they have the No. 1 ranking if more vaccines is better, and most vaccines is best?

Walt and co. want the pharma-medical oligarchy running the country, starting with NSW:

In fact, I would support even further and tougher measures on vaccinations at both the State and Federal levels. It is for this reason that we propose New South Wales taking the lead on this issue. This legislation before us will give New South Wales the toughest anti-vaccination laws in Australia.

In other words, we’re only just getting started with this attack on freedom and health, and NSW is leading the charge, with Lord Secord on the frontline. NSW will be the least medically free place to live in Australia very soon (if it is not already) if this Health Amendment Bill is passed. Hitler would be proud of the headway these medical fascists have been making lately.

Specifics of the Health Amendment Bill 2017:

Clause 2 states that the bill will commence on the date of assent of the proposed Act. Clause 3 amends the Public Health Act 2010 with the effect that the principal of a childcare facility must not enrol, or permit to be enrolled, an unvaccinated child at the facility if the only reason provided for failure to vaccinate the child is that the parent of the child has a conscientious belief that the child should not be vaccinated against specified vaccine-preventable diseases. The proposed amendments also make it an offence for the principal of a childcare facility to enrol a child at the facility if the principal has not been provided with a vaccination certificate or a medical contraindication certificate. Breaches of this requirement will result in a penalty of 50 penalty units. That is currently set at $5,500.

Along with the witch hunt of Dr John Piesse and additional Orwellian legislation, this amendment is aimed at ultimately squeezing out all vaccine heretics from participation in any level of the economy or society. Get jabbed or go jump. It’s about ideological supremacy on one level, fattening Big Pharma’s bottom line by crushing all competition on another level, and perhaps entirely unconsciously, intensifying the softkill bio-warfare which has been practiced by the State for decades now in pursuit of covert population control.

Below: 2014 data (compiled by a source who will remain anonymous here) comparing vaccine-related deaths to “natural” deaths. In every case bar just one, vaccines caused more death than the diseases they were meant to prevent.

public health amendment

 

Secord quotes Drs Danziger and Diamond at Miami Children’s Hospital, still believing that “doctors know best (because, you know, they’re doctors)”:

There is simply no reason vaccinations should be treated differently than any other form of medical care, and they must be protected within the same framework that has been created for child protection and against medical neglect.

Firstly, other forms of medical intervention (stop using the misleading term “care”) are OPTIONAL. Parents can choose to have their child’s tonsils removed or not – it is not government mandated. Parents can choose whether to remove their child’s adenoids – it is not government mandated. They can choose whether or not to get them braces or a plate – it is not government mandated. So, no, as vaccines are inherently risky and “unavoidably unsafe,” they – like other procedures that unavoidably present risk of harm – should NOT be mandated. Danziger and Diamond must have forgotten that little saying about first doing no harm.

The Cult of Jabism practices a different axiom: “First do something. If that doesn’t work, escalate proceedings – and always dodge accountability.”

Secondly, if Danziger, Diamond, Secord and co. really believe that vaccination should NOT be treated differently to other medical procedures then why, we might ask ourselves, do vaccines get a free pass regardless of the problems they create and the harm generated?

Questions You Aren’t Allowed to Ask

Why is vaccine research of the standard of tobacco research accepted as “gold standard” when we would never accept such low standards of methodology and integrity for other interventions?

Why are vaccine injuries and/or deaths acceptable but other iatrogenic damage is not?

Why is research fraud and poor methodology overlooked in the instance of vaccines?

Why are “placebos” in vaccine studies not REAL placebos, but other vaccines or vaccine ingredients?

Why do we accept the use of other vaccines being used as “placebos” when this form of scientific fraud would (allegedly) never be tolerated in other realms of research?

Why the endless list of double-standards?

Why do we endorse hypocrisy and state-sanctioned violence in the name of “the greater good” when it comes to vaccines?

Why is it not okay to investigate the subject, let alone point out problems with vaccines?

Why are we not allowed to reject products that the very manufacturers themselves quietly admit may maim or kill us?

Why are we not allowed to point out low efficacy rates even when it is admitted by the manufacturer?

Why, why, why, Mr Anderson?

public health amendment

 

Finally, Secord offers yet one more morsel of PC speak justifying the attack on parents (and children) in the name of “children’s rights”:

If vaccination refusal is viewed as a right of parents then it is one that directly conflicts with the right of a child to be free of preventable, serious, and possibly fatal illnesses. It is time to treat vaccination not as a choice of parents but as the right of children.

Ignoring the obvious implied fallacy that the only way to prevent disease is through vaccination, the creation of a situation wherein vaccination is forced on children – who are frequently traumatised by vaccination experiences (to say nothing of the physical damage) – is an obvious violation of children’s rights to not be medically traumatised and unduly interfered with. Surely children and their parents have a right not to be attacked by the medical industry with interventions they do not want. What about people’s right not to be subjected to grief and duress by the State? What about the “right” to schooling that is taken away when vaccination is mandated for school entry and parents who have done their homework sanely reject vaccination?

Things Have Gotten Out of Hand – Australians Must Unite Against Medical Fascism

We must recognise the patently autocratic and paternalistic tone of Secord’s disturbing rhetoric. Who died and made him Father of Australia’s Children?

If Australia’s politicians continue down this slippery slope, they may yet find themselves getting more than they bargained for. With each uptick in propaganda intensity and coercive legislation, more eyebrows are raised, and more people start to think something suspect is taking place.

What will happen if even 30% of hospital, aged care, and day care workers refuse to be vaccinated in order to attend work and simply quit (as some that I know are already planning)? Can the nation’s economy and social infrastructure contend with such a mass rebellion?

I doubt it, but evidently, Lord Secord and company would like to find out.

They will wish they hadn’t.

Addendum:

Dr Piesse’s office was raided on September 8th by AHPRA and police and confidential patient records were confiscated despite his not even being formally accused of any illegal activity! Wouldn’t you like to know under what authority patient records were taken? We strongly urge all of Piesse’s patients to lodge a complaint to AHPRA asking for citation of legislation that shows they have rights to access their files without their consent? More to the point, we simply suggest that people register their disgust with AHPRA regarding the Cult of Jabism (which includes AHPRA), the no jab no school/pay legislation, and the treatment of conscientious medical heretics like Dr Piesse.
Complain to/about AHPRA here

Note: You can support Dr Piesse’s legal defence here.


One thought on “New Health Legislation to Spark Rebellion in Oz?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *