Australia To Cut Welfare Payments
For Anti-Vaxxers
April 13, 2015 | by Stephen Luntz
The Australian government will tighten the rules requiring children to be vaccinated in order for parents to receive welfare payments and childcare subsidies.
Current Australia law states that children must be vaccinated if their parents are to get the Family Tax Benefit A and rebates for childcare costs. However, exemptions are allowed under three circumstances: medical grounds that make a child at increased risk of unusual reaction, religious opposition or other “personal objections.”The new rules would remove the last option, while still allowing exceptions on religious and medical grounds. The proposal has the support of the Labor opposition, guaranteeing it passage through both houses of parliament.
As in other developed countries, Australia has experienced outbreaks of diseases such as measles and whooping cough that were once controlled or eliminated entirely as a result of increasing numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children.
(In America, at least, increases in whooping cough were not because of unvaccinated children. I say this because a huge number of kids who had whooping cough had been vaccinated. Rather than blaming unvaccinated kids, why not test the crap that rains down on us from chem trails! Why not ask yourself, "Who gains when legislation is put in place to take away people's rights?")
"The choice made by families not to immunize their children is not supported by public policy or medical research,...
(Not true. The research has been done and the results are out there. For example:
"Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist (Retired) with a doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava. After an eminent scientific career in micropalaeontology during which she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas, she studied babies’ breathing patterns with the Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her late husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. Babies had alarms after vaccination, indicating stress. This introduced her to the subject of vaccination. She then started systematically studying orthodox medical papers dealing with vaccination issues. To this day she has collected and studied more than 100000 pages of medical papers.
Despite such extensive research of orthodox medical papers published on vaccines over the past 100 years, she established that there is no scientific evidence that these injections of highly noxious substances prevent diseases, quite to the contrary, that they increase susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of related and unrelated viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines are involved in a great number of modern ills of childhood such as immunoreactive diseases (asthma, allergies), autoimmune diseases (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis), cancers, leukaemia, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, behavioural and learning problems, to mention just the most important conditions.
Her research into vaccination has culminated so far in two books and a number of shorter and longer individual papers published in a variety of scientific and medical publications. She has also conducted frequent international lecture tours to present the results of her research to parents, health and medical professionals and anyone else who is interested. She has also provided a great number of expert witness reports for court cases relating to deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, such as so-called “shaken baby” syndrome." See what I mean? The problem is that Abbott wasn't handed a paper with these words on it. Like the general public, he only knows what he's told.)
...nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of childcare payments,” Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison said in a joint statement.
(Why? What action should not be supported by taxpayers, the right to choose not to put crap in your child's bloodstream? Abbott is showing his true colors here. He doesn't like supporting freedom of thought. He is speaking for Australians. Maybe they like supporting freedom of thought.)
While the proposal has been welcomed by the Australian Medical Association and parental lobby groups, it has attracted criticism even from some vaccination supporters.
(Because the issue isn't about whether to vaccinate or not. The issue is freedom of choice. The more insane legislation the Australian public allows the government to sign into law, the easier it will be for other countries to do the same and the more legislation the Australian government can implement on them, et cetera.)
It has been noted that users of the conscientious objection clause tend to be wealthy, and therefore less likely to be swayed by the loss of a means-tested welfare benefit.
(Swayed means manipulated in this article. It is unfair and therefore against the Australian citizen's rights to be forced to do something that they know is wrong. Rather than wealthy, I'd say educated. If the educated happen to have more money, fine, but that is not always the case. At any rate, people who have spent years investigating this subject and therefore are educated on this subject, will absolutely NEVER allow this crap to be injected into their wee ones system. How insane is it to force a family to hurt their children or no food will be on the table tonight. When the wealthy won't budge, what kind of legislation will they come up with next? A tax on all private helicopter rides? A tax on maid service? When will they stop, ever?)
The current Australian government's record of hostility to science, demonstrated across many fields, has created suspicion about their motivation, particularly since the announcement coincides with moves to restrict welfare for other reasons.
(Particularly. The public are screwed no matter what you believe about vaccines. Is it time to ask them to step down, yet?)
The conscientious objector clause has been used by less than 2% of parents in the last year. Another 6% of children are not vaccinated for other reasons—often from oversight rather than through deliberate parental decision. The proportion of children in the latter category has dropped significantly since 1998.
(So ask yourselves, "Why is such a small percentage of the population such a threat to them, the rulers of the world?")
However, those electing not to vaccinate their children tend to be concentrated in specific areas, allowing infectious disease outbreaks to take hold. Advocates of the new policy hope it will raise vaccination rates in these areas to the point where herd immunity will be sufficient to prevent further outbreaks.
(Two points: Firstly, as in California in 2010, it was many vaccinated kids who became ill with Whooping Cough. Secondly, germ theory is just that...a theory. True immunity occurs when your body doesn't allow various bugs to take over. History lesson: Although Louis Pasteur is credited with Germ Theory, the real first person was Geronimo Fracastrio. In 1553, he published "De Contagionibus et Contagiosis Morbis, et eorum Curatine" in which he gave details about the cause of contagious diseases. I can bet you have never heard of him. Well, he did research on the very things that Pasteur received credit for. Why? Was the time right in the 1800's, so now they can let the public know about it? Doesn't that make you wonder what answers they have right now, but they have decided it's too premature for you to know yet? I'm getting side tracked. Back to Germ Theory. In the 1800's, Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp were contemporaries, but Bechamp discovered a microscopic thing, a microzyma, that would determine if your body would have infections, or be in a balanced state. See, basically, Bechamp proved that things like stress could activate these microzymas and then the body would be sick. It's not something from the outside at all. I mean, to start with. If you're living with flow and balance and listening to your body, you could be around tons of sick people and be ok. There's a lot more to his theory and reasons why sickness would occur, but I just wanted to introduce you to the idea that what your learning is controlled by the powers that be. So, could it be true that the pharmaceutical industry who loved Pasteur's modle, and for all we know they hired him and handed Fracastrio's work, wanting him to be big in this field so as they could say, "See. You need our drugs and vaccines." Could it be equally as true that today "Research" runs the same way? We need the public to buy vaccines. Do what you can to make that happen. Yo! Public. It's time to wise up and get your hands on as many books as you can. Read. Learn. Investigate. Then ask any politicians in bed with Big Pharma to step down. Lecture over.)
No comments:
Post a Comment