Australian parents on the run

Australian parents on the run
Hilary Butler - Sunday, August 24, 2008
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_b...nts_on_the_run

Vaccination law in New South Wales, Australia is very clear. If a mother is
hepatitis B surface antigen positive, the parents can be offered
immunoglobulin and the vaccine for the baby, and if the parents say, "No",
the paper work is completed and that's it. But that's not what happened in
Australia this week. Dr David Isaacs, who was not even involved in the case
to begin with, decided it was time to make an "example" of two parents. What
he didn't realise was that he picked the wrong target, and that they would
go into hiding. Furthermore, he also forgot the story of Liam Holloway, and
what happens when other parents are outraged when doctors abuse parents, as
well as the law.

Dr Isaacs point of view is stated he "I am a strong believer in
vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a form
of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and awful
outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when they can't
make decisions for themselves."

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting
hepatitis B from its mother and "about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis
B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young . I don't understand why
these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the
benefits far outweigh the risks."

Professor Isaacs has said that 60 to 95% of babies will not catch Hepatitis
B from a carrier mother. Okay? He says that the potential outcome for this
child is major and awful?

Well, I have a story to tell you intrepid readers, about a New Zealand
family in the town I live in. They just happen to be close friends, so I
know this first hand. A somewhat zealous doctor, discovered in his practice,
a man whose records showed that he had been a known core antigen Hepatitis B
carrier for over 30 years. (How this fact had seemingly escaped the practice
staff's attention is another issue, but let's not go there right now) Core
antigen positive, is worse than just surface antigen positive, as it "means"
that the person is infectious.

This doctor also discovered that the man had repeatedly refused interferon
treatment. Aghast, he discovered that the couple never used any
contraception. How irresponsible! The wife was surely in mortal danger.
Criminally, all seven children, the oldest an adult.... were... gasp....(you
guessed it...) unvaccinated!

Enraged at such total irresponsibility given that a vaccine had been
available for babies for 21 years, he thought it would be a great idea to
make an example of this family. He "ordered" that the wife, and all seven
children be blood tested which they complied with. Surely (he must have
thought) they would all be carriers! Yum! Perhaps he could"force" them all
onto interferon treatment. Who knows what propaganda value these barbaric
child abusers might be to him!

To his utter disappointment, the blood tests showed that the wife and
children were not hepatitis surface antigen or core antigen carriers, and
they were also hepatitis B ANTIBODY NEGATIVE. They had... no immunity!
(According to the test results.) So the parents had snogged, and had sex
without condoms or any contraception, for near on three decades, and NOTHING
had happened! The father, a demonstrative soul, constantly kissed and
cuddled his children, and by this time, his grandchildren as well.

Of course, the said doctor then announced that the wife, children and
grandchildren MUST all be vaccinated immediately, since they were in deadly
danger of becoming mortally sick, carriers, getting cirrhosis or cancer, and
dying.

The family told the doctor to go fertilise his lemon tree, and butt out of
their lives.

You will NOT see this case written up in any medical journal or part of any
media blitz, because it proves Dr Isaacs figures to be a guestimate plucked
from some convenient crystal ball. This family doesn't "suit" their
purposes. There is no emotional pity to be extorted from it.

Thinking realistically with regard to the Australian baby's chances of being
infected from the mother... which figure is it to be?

5 per 100, or 40 per 100?

There is a huge difference between the two. Perhap... they don't know? Did
any journalist bother to ask that question? If not, why not?

This figure which says that five to forty percent of children can catch
hepatitis B from their carrier mothers is like saying that anywhere between
5,000 people to 40,000 people might get killed on Australian roads every
year. Any statistician who came up with those sorts of statistical range
would be called incompentent.

Hasn't hepatitis B has been around long enough for doctors to have a
definitive answer? If not, why don't they come out and admit that they
haven't actually got the foggiest idea, and are just guessing so that they
can sound like they know something? I'm surprised not one journo has called
them on this gaffe.

Here's how I see this little game.

No-one actually gives a monkey's trumpet about this family or this child.
After all, given the scare mongering doctors keep on rolling out about how
people die from chickenpox, the flu and every other microbial monster under
the sun, that argument above should surely apply to all vaccines, not just
this one?

They don't seem to care about the "risk" to the father here, or the three
year old. All the attention is on the baby. They haven't SAID that the
mother is core antigen, which makes me wonder whether she's not actually
infectious. This baby has now become an medico-political pawn in a game of
emotional blackmail. The stakes here seem to me to be quite high, and far
reaching.

Is this the "nose of the camel"?

Will the next move be to go around impounding all the girls whose parents
don't vaccinate their kids with Gardasil, on the basis that they are
condemning their children to cervical cancer? Will they go around impounding
all the kiddies whose parents don't use the flu vaccine, on the basis that
their fluey babies/children might kill their grandma already vaccinated with
a flu shot that is as useful as tap-water?

Maybe.

Perhaps this is the medical profession "flying a kite"; testing the waters;
seeing how the public reacts. Have they conditioned other people well enough
so that they won't "mind" if all their rights as parents are eventually
stripped off them?

If the public gets outraged at the parents, and backs Dr Isaacs, he will be
mightily pleased.

You watch. If that happens, the neck of the camel will come next, then the
body. Before you know it the tent won't be yours any more, and anyone who
doesn't vaccinate against anything will be accused of being some sort of
terrorist, and chucked into the clink, along with the child murderers, ...
and you know what inmates do to them!

Unless of course, it all backfires, like it did with Liam Holloway in New
Zealand.

Level headed outraged New Zealanders, said "Sod you," to the medical
profession, who were trying to force chemo onto a child who didn't want it
after suffering hugely from the first lot.

While the doctors said the child would be dead within six months and a
nationwide hunt was authorized, ordinary kiwi parents got organised, kept
quiet about it, allocated safe houses, kept watch, moved the family on as
the police moved in, and the child, the parents and the rest of the family
were safely hidden for 20 months until finally the doctors caved, and
cancelled the court order.

Now, the question is, whether there are enough Australians who have the guts
to stick their necks out, and do the same thing. Do you Aussies CARE enough
to send a message to doctors telling them just WHO is the parent here and
just WHO has the right to make the choices here? Are you Aussies going to
stand up, and make the law stick?

Because if their aren't enough Australians to enforce existing law, and
support a parent's right of choice, then one day, it just might be you.

It's over to you, our Aussie cousins, to stand up, and show us Kiwis that
YOU too have honourable mettle, and are heartily sick of the nanny state
dictating to us, what, where, when and how we should even breathe

Wonder why the itch does not have this on his sicko websites?

"JOHN" wrote in message
...
Australian parents on the run
Hilary Butler - Sunday, August 24, 2008
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_b...nts_on_the_run

Vaccination law in New South Wales, Australia is very clear. If a mother
is hepatitis B surface antigen positive, the parents can be offered
immunoglobulin and the vaccine for the baby, and if the parents say, "No",
the paper work is completed and that's it. But that's not what happened in
Australia this week. Dr David Isaacs, who was not even involved in the
case to begin with, decided it was time to make an "example" of two
parents. What he didn't realise was that he picked the wrong target, and
that they would go into hiding. Furthermore, he also forgot the story of
Liam Holloway, and what happens when other parents are outraged when
doctors abuse parents, as well as the law.

Dr Isaacs point of view is stated he "I am a strong believer in
vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a
form of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and
awful outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when
they can't make decisions for themselves."

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of
contracting hepatitis B from its mother and "about 30 per cent of people
with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young . I don't
understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a
warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks."

Professor Isaacs has said that 60 to 95% of babies will not catch
Hepatitis B from a carrier mother. Okay? He says that the potential
outcome for this child is major and awful?

Well, I have a story to tell you intrepid readers, about a New Zealand
family in the town I live in. They just happen to be close friends, so I
know this first hand. A somewhat zealous doctor, discovered in his
practice, a man whose records showed that he had been a known core antigen
Hepatitis B carrier for over 30 years. (How this fact had seemingly
escaped the practice staff's attention is another issue, but let's not go
there right now) Core antigen positive, is worse than just surface antigen
positive, as it "means" that the person is infectious.

This doctor also discovered that the man had repeatedly refused interferon
treatment. Aghast, he discovered that the couple never used any
contraception. How irresponsible! The wife was surely in mortal danger.
Criminally, all seven children, the oldest an adult.... were...
gasp....(you guessed it...) unvaccinated!

Enraged at such total irresponsibility given that a vaccine had been
available for babies for 21 years, he thought it would be a great idea to
make an example of this family. He "ordered" that the wife, and all seven
children be blood tested which they complied with. Surely (he must have
thought) they would all be carriers! Yum! Perhaps he could"force" them all
onto interferon treatment. Who knows what propaganda value these barbaric
child abusers might be to him!

To his utter disappointment, the blood tests showed that the wife and
children were not hepatitis surface antigen or core antigen carriers, and
they were also hepatitis B ANTIBODY NEGATIVE. They had... no immunity!
(According to the test results.) So the parents had snogged, and had sex
without condoms or any contraception, for near on three decades, and
NOTHING had happened! The father, a demonstrative soul, constantly kissed
and cuddled his children, and by this time, his grandchildren as well.

Of course, the said doctor then announced that the wife, children and
grandchildren MUST all be vaccinated immediately, since they were in
deadly danger of becoming mortally sick, carriers, getting cirrhosis or
cancer, and dying.

The family told the doctor to go fertilise his lemon tree, and butt out of
their lives.

You will NOT see this case written up in any medical journal or part of
any media blitz, because it proves Dr Isaacs figures to be a guestimate
plucked from some convenient crystal ball. This family doesn't "suit"
their purposes. There is no emotional pity to be extorted from it.

Thinking realistically with regard to the Australian baby's chances of
being infected from the mother... which figure is it to be?

5 per 100, or 40 per 100?

There is a huge difference between the two. Perhap... they don't know?
Did any journalist bother to ask that question? If not, why not?

This figure which says that five to forty percent of children can catch
hepatitis B from their carrier mothers is like saying that anywhere
between 5,000 people to 40,000 people might get killed on Australian roads
every year. Any statistician who came up with those sorts of statistical
range would be called incompentent.

Hasn't hepatitis B has been around long enough for doctors to have a
definitive answer? If not, why don't they come out and admit that they
haven't actually got the foggiest idea, and are just guessing so that they
can sound like they know something? I'm surprised not one journo has
called them on this gaffe.

Here's how I see this little game.

No-one actually gives a monkey's trumpet about this family or this child.
After all, given the scare mongering doctors keep on rolling out about how
people die from chickenpox, the flu and every other microbial monster
under the sun, that argument above should surely apply to all vaccines,
not just this one?

They don't seem to care about the "risk" to the father here, or the three
year old. All the attention is on the baby. They haven't SAID that the
mother is core antigen, which makes me wonder whether she's not actually
infectious. This baby has now become an medico-political pawn in a game of
emotional blackmail. The stakes here seem to me to be quite high, and far
reaching.

Is this the "nose of the camel"?

Will the next move be to go around impounding all the girls whose parents
don't vaccinate their kids with Gardasil, on the basis that they are
condemning their children to cervical cancer? Will they go around
impounding all the kiddies whose parents don't use the flu vaccine, on the
basis that their fluey babies/children might kill their grandma already
vaccinated with a flu shot that is as useful as tap-water?

Maybe.

Perhaps this is the medical profession "flying a kite"; testing the
waters; seeing how the public reacts. Have they conditioned other people
well enough so that they won't "mind" if all their rights as parents are
eventually stripped off them?

If the public gets outraged at the parents, and backs Dr Isaacs, he will
be mightily pleased.

You watch. If that happens, the neck of the camel will come next, then the
body. Before you know it the tent won't be yours any more, and anyone who
doesn't vaccinate against anything will be accused of being some sort of
terrorist, and chucked into the clink, along with the child murderers, ...
and you know what inmates do to them!

Unless of course, it all backfires, like it did with Liam Holloway in New
Zealand.

Level headed outraged New Zealanders, said "Sod you," to the medical
profession, who were trying to force chemo onto a child who didn't want it
after suffering hugely from the first lot.

While the doctors said the child would be dead within six months and a
nationwide hunt was authorized, ordinary kiwi parents got organised, kept
quiet about it, allocated safe houses, kept watch, moved the family on as
the police moved in, and the child, the parents and the rest of the family
were safely hidden for 20 months until finally the doctors caved, and
cancelled the court order.

Now, the question is, whether there are enough Australians who have the
guts to stick their necks out, and do the same thing. Do you Aussies CARE
enough to send a message to doctors telling them just WHO is the parent
here and just WHO has the right to make the choices here? Are you Aussies
going to stand up, and make the law stick?

Because if their aren't enough Australians to enforce existing law, and
support a parent's right of choice, then one day, it just might be you.

It's over to you, our Aussie cousins, to stand up, and show us Kiwis that
YOU too have honourable mettle, and are heartily sick of the nanny state
dictating to us, what, where, when and how we should even breathe

"Jan Drew" wrote:

Wonder why the itch does not have this on his sicko websites?

I assume that you are talking about me.

I plan a story about these disgusting, child abusing parents in my
next update. I don't update daily and this story only broke last
weekend.

Would you approve of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing a blood donation to
save a baby's life, Jan? If not, why not?


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
Wonder why the itch does not have this on his sicko websites?

"JOHN" wrote in message
...
Australian parents on the run
Hilary Butler - Sunday, August 24, 2008
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_b...nts_on_the_run

Vaccination law in New South Wales, Australia is very clear. If a mother
is hepatitis B surface antigen positive, the parents can be offered
immunoglobulin and the vaccine for the baby, and if the parents say,
"No",
the paper work is completed and that's it. But that's not what happened
in
Australia this week. Dr David Isaacs, who was not even involved in the
case to begin with, decided it was time to make an "example" of two
parents. What he didn't realise was that he picked the wrong target, and
that they would go into hiding. Furthermore, he also forgot the story of
Liam Holloway, and what happens when other parents are outraged when
doctors abuse parents, as well as the law.

Dr Isaacs point of view is stated he "I am a strong believer in
vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a
form of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and
awful outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when
they can't make decisions for themselves."

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of
contracting hepatitis B from its mother and "about 30 per cent of people
with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young . I don't
understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a
warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks."

Professor Isaacs has said that 60 to 95% of babies will not catch
Hepatitis B from a carrier mother. Okay? He says that the potential
outcome for this child is major and awful?

Well, I have a story to tell you intrepid readers, about a New Zealand
family in the town I live in. They just happen to be close friends, so I
know this first hand. A somewhat zealous doctor, discovered in his
practice, a man whose records showed that he had been a known core
antigen
Hepatitis B carrier for over 30 years. (How this fact had seemingly
escaped the practice staff's attention is another issue, but let's not go
there right now) Core antigen positive, is worse than just surface
antigen
positive, as it "means" that the person is infectious.

This doctor also discovered that the man had repeatedly refused
interferon
treatment. Aghast, he discovered that the couple never used any
contraception. How irresponsible! The wife was surely in mortal danger.
Criminally, all seven children, the oldest an adult.... were...
gasp....(you guessed it...) unvaccinated!

Enraged at such total irresponsibility given that a vaccine had been
available for babies for 21 years, he thought it would be a great idea to
make an example of this family. He "ordered" that the wife, and all seven
children be blood tested which they complied with. Surely (he must have
thought) they would all be carriers! Yum! Perhaps he could"force" them
all
onto interferon treatment. Who knows what propaganda value these barbaric
child abusers might be to him!

To his utter disappointment, the blood tests showed that the wife and
children were not hepatitis surface antigen or core antigen carriers, and
they were also hepatitis B ANTIBODY NEGATIVE. They had... no immunity!
(According to the test results.) So the parents had snogged, and had
sex
without condoms or any contraception, for near on three decades, and
NOTHING had happened! The father, a demonstrative soul, constantly kissed
and cuddled his children, and by this time, his grandchildren as well.

Of course, the said doctor then announced that the wife, children and
grandchildren MUST all be vaccinated immediately, since they were in
deadly danger of becoming mortally sick, carriers, getting cirrhosis or
cancer, and dying.

The family told the doctor to go fertilise his lemon tree, and butt out
of
their lives.

You will NOT see this case written up in any medical journal or part of
any media blitz, because it proves Dr Isaacs figures to be a guestimate
plucked from some convenient crystal ball. This family doesn't "suit"
their purposes. There is no emotional pity to be extorted from it.

Thinking realistically with regard to the Australian baby's chances of
being infected from the mother... which figure is it to be?

5 per 100, or 40 per 100?

There is a huge difference between the two. Perhap... they don't know?
Did any journalist bother to ask that question? If not, why not?

This figure which says that five to forty percent of children can catch
hepatitis B from their carrier mothers is like saying that anywhere
between 5,000 people to 40,000 people might get killed on Australian
roads
every year. Any statistician who came up with those sorts of statistical
range would be called incompentent.

Hasn't hepatitis B has been around long enough for doctors to have a
definitive answer? If not, why don't they come out and admit that they
haven't actually got the foggiest idea, and are just guessing so that
they
can sound like they know something? I'm surprised not one journo has
called them on this gaffe.

Here's how I see this little game.

No-one actually gives a monkey's trumpet about this family or this child.
After all, given the scare mongering doctors keep on rolling out about
how
people die from chickenpox, the flu and every other microbial monster
under the sun, that argument above should surely apply to all vaccines,
not just this one?

They don't seem to care about the "risk" to the father here, or the three
year old. All the attention is on the baby. They haven't SAID that the
mother is core antigen, which makes me wonder whether she's not actually
infectious. This baby has now become an medico-political pawn in a game
of
emotional blackmail. The stakes here seem to me to be quite high, and far
reaching.

Is this the "nose of the camel"?

Will the next move be to go around impounding all the girls whose parents
don't vaccinate their kids with Gardasil, on the basis that they are
condemning their children to cervical cancer? Will they go around
impounding all the kiddies whose parents don't use the flu vaccine, on
the
basis that their fluey babies/children might kill their grandma already
vaccinated with a flu shot that is as useful as tap-water?

Maybe.

Perhaps this is the medical profession "flying a kite"; testing the
waters; seeing how the public reacts. Have they conditioned other people
well enough so that they won't "mind" if all their rights as parents are
eventually stripped off them?

If the public gets outraged at the parents, and backs Dr Isaacs, he will
be mightily pleased.

You watch. If that happens, the neck of the camel will come next, then
the
body. Before you know it the tent won't be yours any more, and anyone
who
doesn't vaccinate against anything will be accused of being some sort of
terrorist, and chucked into the clink, along with the child murderers,
...
and you know what inmates do to them!

Unless of course, it all backfires, like it did with Liam Holloway in New
Zealand.

Level headed outraged New Zealanders, said "Sod you," to the medical
profession, who were trying to force chemo onto a child who didn't want
it
after suffering hugely from the first lot.

While the doctors said the child would be dead within six months and a
nationwide hunt was authorized, ordinary kiwi parents got organised, kept
quiet about it, allocated safe houses, kept watch, moved the family on as
the police moved in, and the child, the parents and the rest of the
family
were safely hidden for 20 months until finally the doctors caved, and
cancelled the court order.

Now, the question is, whether there are enough Australians who have the
guts to stick their necks out, and do the same thing. Do you Aussies CARE
enough to send a message to doctors telling them just WHO is the parent
here and just WHO has the right to make the choices here? Are you
Aussies
going to stand up, and make the law stick?

Because if their aren't enough Australians to enforce existing law, and
support a parent's right of choice, then one day, it just might be you.

It's over to you, our Aussie cousins, to stand up, and show us Kiwis that
YOU too have honourable mettle, and are heartily sick of the nanny state
dictating to us, what, where, when and how we should even breathe