No link in this blog post, as I wouldn’t know which one to choose. The media are pretty busy screaming that certain government payments should be denied to parents who don’t vaccinate their children. They shouldn’t be allowed on day care centres either, because they are too dangerous. The government obviously should decide what is the best medical treatment for an individual child. So if people have a child that is disabled because of a vaccine reaction and they refuse to risk their younger children, then they won’t get the childcare rebate and other government payments. So they need to take care of a completely dependent child and can’t send their other children to day care and won’t get any financial help with the medical costs of their disabled child. And that’s all because children should be protected against parents who don’t have their best interests in mind. Wow. Are there really people who think like this? Yes, there are, and plenty of them. And they are very vocal. So you can bet that politicians will start falling for it.
But this blog isn’t about politics or loud, ignorant, pea-brained journalists who want to advance their careers. This blog is about the difference between science and fiction. So let’s look at the facts behind the latest kind pro-vax media hype. Unvaccinated children shouldn’t be allowed in childcare centres, because they are dangerous to other children. Of course, if those other children are vaccinated, they wouldn’t be in any danger. So that’s the first piece of fiction here. But obviously it’s assumed, and correctly so, that vaccines don’t work in all cases. That’s a fact, not fiction. So children who have been vaccinated, but no immunised, are just as dangerous to other children as those who haven’t been vaccinated. That means that all children who haven’t got an antibody response shouldn’t be allowed at childcare either. That’s common sense.
It’s also generally known that the antibody response often doesn’t last longer than two years, which is the reason why booster shots are given at 4 and 10 years of age. So that means that every child that has an initial antibody response to the vaccines should be tested every six months to check if they still have enough antibodies to qualify as immune. Else they are too dangerous to other kids and should be banned from childcare.
But then there is a really big problem. For it has been known for at least 30 years that antibodies do NOT equal immunity. So what if a child has been vaccinated, has developed antibodies, but is still not immune? That child should be banned from childcare, as it’s too dangerous to other children. There is just no way of knowing, for antibodies are the only thing that gets tested for. So this basically means that all childcare centres should close, or they should only be open to children who have a note from a doctor that they have had measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, hepatitis b, meningitis, whooping cough and all the other diseases which are standard vaccinated for.
So what are the facts here? Pro-vaxxers are lobbying for discrimination based on submission to a medical treatment. It has nothing to do with immunity or with the safety of children. Well, actually it does have to do with the safety of children, for most parents who refuse to vaccinate have made that decision based on the total lack of proof that vaccines are safe and the overwhelming amount of proof that they are unsafe. But that’s not what the screaming pro-vaxxers talk about. They only care if a child has been stuck with as many needles as the government orders and has been injected with high amounts of toxic substances. Whether that makes the child immune to diseases seems to be a totally irrelevant detail.
Facts cannot be disputed, but the only fact here is that this kind of discrimination is not based on facts, but only on fiction. And on the very strong belief in that fiction. The belief in the fiction of vaccinations is so strong that facts are completely ignored, reason doesn’t exist and discussion is impossible. These are very common characteristics in religions, which makes it even more obvious what we are dealing with here.
And it’s so unpleasant for those who want to discriminate based on this kind of religion: the Australian constitution forbids it. The government can try to withhold payments from parents who won’t vaccinate, but they find the constitution staring them straight in the face. They probably won’t care, but in that case a judge will have to decide. For if anything like this will happen I will be very happy to take the government (either state or federal) to court and it won’t take me an hour to get a LOAD of people supporting me with this. And then a judge can decide about how valid the constitution is. Science is squarely on the side of non-vaccinating parents. Fiction is on the side of those who push vaccines.