AVSN: Fairdinkum Radio interview 9 May 2013
WARNINGThe Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is the subject of a current health warning issued by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. The warning, in part, states:
"The Commission considers that AVN's dissemination of misleading, misrepresented and incorrect information about vaccination engenders fear and alarm and is likely to detrimentally affect the clinical management or care of its readers."
"Given the issues identified with the information disseminated by AVN, the Commission urges general caution is exercised when using AVN's website or Facebook page to research vaccination and to consult other reliable sources, including speaking to a medical practitioner, to make an informed decision."
For accurate information about vaccination, please visit the Immunise Australia Program website and I highly recommend reading Immunisation Myths and Realities: responding to arguments against immunisation.
Host: Leon Pittard, Fairdinkum Radio
Guest: Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network
Date: 9 May 2013
Note: author's comments appear in [ ]square brackets in the transcript
[Standard show introduction not transcribed]
Leon: Welcome, friends. Thanks for joining me. My name is Leon Pittard, I'm the host of Fairdinkum Radio and we are broadcasting from the land down under in Australia. Well, this week the vaccination debate has heated up. Sunday Telegraph [sic] and The Daily Telegraph have launched a campaign this week to ensure that all schoolchildren would be vaccinated. Indeed, I read 'Australian Medical Assocation angered over claims by president of the Australian Vaccination Network.' And we will get into some of the different issues in regard to this debate as we go along. But this "No Jab, No Play" campaign, launched to ban unvaccinated kids from childcare centres and preschools. As you know, we have been talking about vaccines and immunity and natural health on this program, in the past. The Australian Vaccination Network has been a force in sharing information to those people who are willing to look. Over the last 18 months, Meryl Dorey has joined me here many times to talk about many of the different issues. The Australian Vaccination Network has come under the microscope of all those that are wanting to push the mandatory vaccination doctrine. Indeed, the Health Care Complaints Commission has now weighed in and has involved itself more fully in this debate by enlisting government to support its mandates.
Joining me to talk about this now is Meryl Dorey. Meryl, welcome along.
Meryl: Thank you, Leon.
Leon: Well, Meryl, let's start with talking about this HCCC power boosted after the antivaccination feud. Now, the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Australian Vaccination Network have history, indeed the, a, you did have a court case involving them over-reaching their powers and the court ruled in your favour. But it seems like the Health Care Complaints Commission is not willing to let it rest there. Talk to us about what their moves are at this time.
Meryl: [no audio at start] ... our case against the Health Care Complaints Commission in the Supreme Court. The HCCC was trying to cite the AVN for being anti-vaccine which is something we have never been. And the Supreme Court ruled, rightly, that they did not have the power to investigate us or to cite us. And they actually awarded costs against the Health Care Complaints Commission in this case. It was a real David vs Goliath, and David won. And immediately after winning the case, we had a huge increase in the number of complaints and the number of government bodies that were investigating us; not only in New South Wales but around the country. All we had to do was announce that we were giving a seminar in say, Victoria or Western Australia, and bodies there started to contact us about different, different matters. It was quite obvious that winning against a government body is something that's just not done. And so the Health Care Complaints Commission went to parliament and said that the AVN won and they wanted to make sure that they would be able to cite us without the interference of the courts. So in other words, they want to put themselves above the law. And the parliament looks like it's going to do it.
Now, the Health Care Complaints Commission is an unusual body. They're one of only two organisations - government bodies - in Australia that cannot be subpoenaed and cannot be forced to, to respond to a freedom of information claim. So they are already very powerful. They are already, you could almost say, above the law. But what they're asking for is even more power. Right now, they were set up to protect the population from dangerous medical doctors and health practitioners. And what they've asked parliament for - and it looks like parliament is going to give them - is the ability to actually investigate anyone, even if there is no evidence of any harm. So, if Joe Bloggs up the street decides that he doesn't like homeopathy and he thinks homeopathy shouldn't be allowed to exist in Australia, Joe Bloggs can go and report ten different homeopaths to the Health Care Complaints Commission who can then investigate them and perhaps even shut them down.
But even more sinister than that, the Health Care Complaints Commission wants to be given the power to initiate investigations themselves, even if there is no evidence of harm. So the Health Care Complaints Commission can come and say, "I think that the AVN is doing the wrong thing because they're questioning vaccination, therefore they should be cited and shut down." And parliament wants to give them that power. The, this legislation has already passed one house of parliament and it is being debated in the other house this week. And we have asked people to visit, call and write letters to New South Wales parliamentarians, including the Minister and Shadow Minister for Health, both of whom have come out in support of this legislation. It is such an amazing threat to our right to communicate and speak with each other, to our right to choose natural health, and to our right to not have to be afraid of being investigated by government bodies simply because they don't like the side of the health fence that we happen to fall on.
Leon: So, originally, the HCCC needed a complaint from, let's say, a patient of a practioner regarding a practitoner's advice or what the practitioner had prescribed, maybe causing injury. But what this, what this actual change will bring is that they will have their own motion. But it also goes further, from what I understand, to actually investigate non-health practitioners, in other words, what is the boundary? I mean, a 'non-health practitioner' means anyone, anything. They could investigate a local newspaper, couldn't they, for ...
Leon: ... for talking about bananas being good for relaxing muscle. Or, I mean, you know, does this, is this what it is? Does it actually broaden the scope? Basically so there is no limitation to their power on the actual.. under the word 'health care'.
Meryl: Exactly. If you're talking over the back fence to your neighbour and you happen to mention that you were coming down with a cold and you used vitamin C and it went away, well, perhaps your neighbour could file a complaint. But even more amazing is the Australian Medical Association has come out in support of this legislation but only if they were exempt from it. So they don't want the HCCC or people who haven't actually been to see a particular doctor, to be able to file complaints. They only want complaints to be filed against members of the public or people who are natural health practitioners. So, I think they'll probably end up getting that exemption. So the very people that the Health Care Complaints Commission were supposed to protect the public from are the very people that the Health Care Complaints Commission is now going to be protecting the doctors from. It's all bass-ackwards. It's just completely crazy.
Leon: Well, and, and this is obviously the AVN is in the centre of all this because of the fact that the courts did rule in your favour. Now, obviously the government and their associated lobbyists, being the AMA and HCCC and other associated bodies, they've got their nose out of joint because the courts ruled and said, "No, you've over-stepped." And they've said, "Well, ok, what we'll do now is that we will lobby government and we will get them to implement legislative changes so that we do have the power. And not only that, we'll have more power that what the courts said that we didn't have."
Meryl: That's right. And anyone who is interested in this can go to the NSW Hansard, which is a listing of all the debates in parliament. And just search for Kieran Pehm, P.E.H.M, HCCC and AVN and you will see the debate. And Kieran Pehm actually - he's the head of the HCCC, of the Health Care Complaints Commission - and he went to the committee in parliament that deals with the HCCC and said I would like this legislation introduced because the AVN won against us and we don't want that to stand. So, you know, it's, it was not even hidden, it was quite obvious that this is the reason for the legislation.
And there was another piece of legislation that was introduced specifically for us, and that was giving the department of Fair Trading the right to force an organisation to change its name, simply because the Minister for Fair Trading feels that its name is wrong or misleading in some way. And that legislation has already passed and it can be used for many other organisations, but it was specifically introduced because of the AVN. I can't talk about this one too much because we go to court next month, but the government is trying to force us to change our name 'cause they think the name Australian Vaccination Network is misleading in some way. You know, for a tiny little organisation we've certainly had the New South Wales parliament hopping.
Leon: Yep, and that's right, and that's because the vaccine industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and its aim is total vaccination of all the population and that everyone must be on the vaccination schedule full-time. Everyone must be continually vaccinated and this is the only way that these people understand health. By the propaganda that is being put out by the Ministry of Truth through this week, it is as though the only thing that can provide immunisation - immunity - is scientific, medical vaccination. And what is left out of the debate, and it is never mentioned, is that we do have natural immunity and that the body is made to resist and be immune from certain diseases, and yet that is never talked about, Meryl, in this debate. It is only vaccinations, the only answer for everyone to be 100% healthy without any disease in the community if we vaccinate everyone.
Meryl: [chuckles] That's because you can't make money from natural immunity. And, you know, it's all about money and power and, unfortunately, the natural immunity which we have developed over thousands of years is being lost in one or two generations, simply because of over-vaccination, over-use of antibiotics. It's a very sad situation. We have a case now where over 40% of Australia's children are chronically ill. And, you know, if you look 30, 40 years back, that would not be the case. There may have been children who died in childhood and there may have been more children dying in childhood, I really don't know because the figures are not very accurate, but we certainly did not have the number of sick children that we have now. And vaccinations and over-use of antibiotics are definitely implicated in those situations.
Leon: Well, we want to get in, get into some of those issues, but let's just... Andrew, Dr Andrew McDonald told MO [Medical Observer] he had backed the changes in light of the AVN decision, right? Provided they did not mean employers could sack practitioners simply for being under investigation. But he said this, "The own motion stuff had to happen." In other words, to give more power to the HCCC. "Immunisation is dependent on herd immunity." Now, I want to talk about this idea that's trotted out regularly and is really the holy grail of the vaccination industry because without this particular idea of, this doctrine, that they do speak about, their whole idea of mandatory vaccination of the whole population falls over. Now, for a start I'd just like to share a couple of thoughts here with you, Meryl, then I'll get you to respond. But, the idea of herd immunity really is referring to us like cattle, or sheep. And for a start, I don't accept that. I accept that the human race is different to cattle and sheep. But this idea is sown in the mind that we know this because of the way we deal with cattle, or with the way we deal with sheep, etc, but I do refer to Dr Russell Blaylock and he said this, "Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public health officials, other medical personnel and the public into accepting vaccinations. That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school we were taught that all of the children's vaccines last a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is, that at least half the population - that is, the baby boomers - have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they've been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades." So there is a very simple mathematical equation when you stop to think about it, that once upon a time they said 'have a vaccine, it lasts forever'. Now, it runs out, you've got to have them every year, or every second year, or you've got to have continual boosters, and as Dr Russell Blaylock pointed out there, Meryl, that means that at least a half the population or more do not have any vaccine-induced immunity at any one time. Meaning, herd immunity has never existed and never will.
Meryl: Exactly right. It is, it is such a [inaudible] that we've been sold. Truly, there is no evidence that herd immunity from vaccinations ever worked. And the term 'herd immunity' actually goes back to the 1930's when a doctor by the name of Hedrich studied what they called interepidemic period; you might have an epidemic of measles and you'd have a large outbreak with a lot of people getting measles and then you'd have a period where there'd be very few cases of measles - not none, but very few - and then 3 to 4 years later you'd have another outbreak. And what Hedrich discovered is that you need a certain number of susceptible individuals in a community - or a herd - in order for an epidemic to occur. Once everyone had gotten measles or most people in that community had gotten measles or one of the other viral diseases, then there wouldn't be enough susceptible individuals to carry on an epidemic. But a few years later you'd have new babies born into the community, you'd have more susceptible individuals and you would have another outbreak. So herd immunity never was intended to mean wiping out the disease, you know, getting rid of it. It was never intended to do anything except explain why all these infectious diseases are cyclical in nature. You would have an outbreak and then you'd have a period of time when you'd have very few cases and then another outbreak.
So, what the medical community has done, is taking this term 'herd immunity' and tried to twist it so that they could use it to their advantage, by saying that we need to get a certain number of people vaccinated in order for the disease to be wiped out. Now, what Hedrich discovered is that once, about 67 to 68% of the herd, of the population, was no longer susceptible you would have a very few cases being reported. And it's interesting because when the herd immunity concept was first applied to vaccination they said we needed to have about 65% of the population vaccinated. So we have 65% of the population vaccinated and we still had cases, we still had outbreaks and epidemics. So they raised the bar, make it 75%, still didn't work. Make it 85%; still getting epidemics.
95%. We currently have a 95% vaccination rate in children under the age of 4 against whooping cough and we have more cases of whooping cough than we've ever had per capita since before the vaccine was licensed, was licensed for mass use in 1952. We were using the vaccine before then but it wasn't across the board, it wasn't in mass use. So we have 95% vaccinated and we have more cases than we had since before the vaccine was being used on mass level.
Herd immunity is being used as an excuse for why we're still seeing these cases. And I don't know how many times I've read in the last few months, that vaccines don't work unless everyone does them. And that goes back to the herd immunity. They say you need to get a 100% vaccinated in order to stop seeing these outbreaks, and I even saw one of the doctor's quoted in The Daily Telegraph yesterday saying something along the lines of "we have to vaccinate everyone to protect the ones who are vaccinated but who the vaccine didn't work in." So [laughing] we're accepting that the vaccine's not going to protect some people but that's why we need to vaccinate everyone so we can protect the ones in whom the vaccine didn't work. Do we know how many it's not going to work in? Does it work in anyone? As you said, it only lasts for 2 to 10 years if you accept that there is immunity from vaccination. So, even if we get 100% of the population vaccinated, 2 to 10 years down the track they're all going to be susceptible again. Whereas if they got the disease naturally they would still be immune.
Leon: Exactly. And as you...
Meryl: Herd immunity does not work with vaccines.
Leon: Yes. And as you pointed out, there's basically 95% of vaccinated children now under 4 and yet we have whooping cough outbreaks and we have diseases that continue in our communities. Now this is, therefore, their, the pro- mandatory vaccination lobby would be then saying that this, these diseases come only from the ones that aren't vaccinated but that, that would be their argument. And yet, even if on 95%, what you've got to show is even the experts themselves who are on the pro- mandatory vaccination side, even Professor Peter McIntyre said it was vaccine was good at reducing the severe strain of the disease but it's not good at preventing infection altogether. And Hamblin [sic], Dr Hamblin [sic] this week said it's not 100%.
So, they admit over and over again, they admit that the vaccines do not protect you against any disease. Their angle is it just reduces the risk but it does not, they cannot guarantee, they cannot write an affidavit to say that if you get vaccinated, you are protected from this disease. So, the way I read that as a common man is, vaccines are not 100% effective. You know, vaccines do not produce what they say. They will produce, even if they did prod..., even if they did vaccinate 100% of the population, you would still have whooping cough, you would still have chicken pox, you would still have polio, you would still have all of these different things even if they did achieve 100% because they're not 100% effective according to their own statements.
Meryl: And if they vaccinated a 100% of the population and they had an outbreak they could no longer use the small percentage of the unvaccinated as an excuse. Right now, that tiny little percentage of people whose children are not fully vaccinated are the scapegoat to explain away why the majority of the people who get these diseases in Australia and in other developed countries are fully vaccinated against them.
You know, and I've even read letters written in by parents of children, 'my fully vaccinated child came down with whooping cough and it's because of those dirty unvaccinated kids in their class'. I mean, are these people not thinking that, hang on a second, their child was supposed to be fully protected; how could they possibly blame an unvaccinated child for giving their fully vaccinated child a disease. It doesn't make any sense.
Leon: Well, this is the, this is the angle of the industry to do this. Also, it is to divide and conquer. It is to isolate those that think differently. It is to make you, if you think differently, feel like a, you should be guilty for the children that have died. This is the angle and I've got some, got some things down here I could read to you, Meryl, where it says down here, "NSW Greens MP John Kaye says parents are falling prey to absurd and disproven voodoo claims and conspiracy theories." Another one down here, it goes on to say, where is it, here it is, "Immunisation experts have blamed the baby Einstein demographic, parents who take an avid interest in their children's development who eat organic food and who use alternative therapies are the problem."[sic]
Meryl: What a bunch of ratbags!
Leon: Yeah, you see, so [Meryl laughing] but this is the, this is the angle, "Former Masterchef host, Sarah Wilson, caused outrage yesterday when she appeared to advocate an anti-immunisation message on Channel 7's Sunrise program. She told the program research about the efficiency and safety of vaccines was 'not conclusive'. I'm not going to take a stance on this myself because I don't know fully but the research is not conclusive.' Dr Hamblin [sic] come out and said he was very concerned about the remarks. 'People pedalling anti-vaccination messages are hurting our children and they need to be informed.' Another group of eminent Australian scientists produced a document proving the value of immunisation and said, Anyone saying anything different, better have the evidence to back it up.' " And so, [Meryl laughs], Meryl, here it is, they're using even Masterchef host, Sarah Wilson, because she said something that was actually different from the corporate pro- mandatory vaccination line. She come under question, Hamblin's [sic] wheeled out, and all of a sudden they're all very concerned about any remark that is showing any doubt to the propagated vaccination program.
Meryl: Hmmm. They have to have 100% vaccinated and they have to have 100% saying positive things about vaccine, [inaudible] anyone who does not tow that party line is anti-vaccine. Even asking a question is anti-vaccine.
Leon: Now, what I want to talk to you about also is the percentages that are always quoted. They always say that there's, and I notice this in nearly every news report I've looked at over the last few weeks, 1.5% are conscientious objectors. Now, this is the great concern to them, these 1.5% of conscientious objectors. Now, I also need to note that this week that term is being changed. There is a newspeak term and it's moving from 'conscientious objectors' to 'vaccine refusers'. Now, Meryl, I wonder if you could talk to us about what you know about this 1.5% that's always quoted.
Meryl: The 1.5% supposedly comes from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. Now, that's a register of, of every time you bring your child to the doctor, a child under 7 for any visit whatsoever, the doctor is supposed to note what your child is up-to-date in with vaccines and report it to this national database called the ACIR. And the ACIR is known for being incredibly inaccurate because doctors can't seem to get the reports right. They say as much as 25% of all medical reports to the register are wrong. But somehow they've managed to say that 1.5% of Australian families, or children of Australian families, are conscientious objectors to vaccination and yet there are areas of Australia that they say are as low as 85% vaccinated. [Meryl laughs]. So I don't know how they get the two to work together, but it's all smoke and mirrors anyway. You can't believe any of these figures that the government puts out because they just put out different statistics depending on what point they are trying to prove at the time. So there's really not a whole lot of truth in much of this information. You asked something else and I've totally lost it, I'm sorry.
Leon: Ahh, yes, the newspeak term 'vaccine refusers' replacing 'conscientious objectors'.
Meryl: Well, conscientious objectors, I think, has a, has a different connotation. It's like people who refuse to fight in the military were conscientious objectors. It means that you have a philosophical reason for not vaccinating. And the AVN was actually, you know, we were there in parliament, we were the group that wrote the conscientious objection clause and lobbied to get it passed, over, well almost 20 years ago when vaccination was first supposed to become mandatory. And we were involved in that and conscientious objection, it has a really good connotation, where a refuser has a totally different feeling to it. But to be honest with you, I quite like the term 'vaccine refuser' because its showing that you are not forgetting about vaccination, that you have actually made a decision, a conscious decision and said no.
So, I know that the reason for changing the name to vaccine refuser is to sort of give parents who don't vaccinate a bad name but I actually think it's a really good name because it does show that these are not parents who've been lazy or forgotten or just were too stupid to understand. These are people who've consciously refused to vaccinate their children for whatever reason but they have made that decision and that's a legal decision in Australia. And people need to be aware and remember that it is a legal decision not to vaccinate and you won't lose any government entitlements and your children - at this point - will still be allowed to go to school.
Leon: Well, this week let's talk about some of the things that have taken place this week 'cause there's been so much happening. This "No Jab, No Play" campaign launched to ban unvaccinated kids from childcare centres and preschools. Now, The Sunday Telegraph from the Murdoch press has decided to launch into a week-long campaign, lining up with their corporate buddies in the Big Pharma industry and the AMA. And they've decided that they're going to get their propaganda out there for the whole week and do everything they can to vilify people like us who actually have a different message. And, in, on the Sunday's edition, just a couple of things I'd like to point out. Number one, obviously, the threat to, to try and threaten parents that, well, if you don't vaccinate your kids, you're not going to be able to put them in preschools. Now, with most parents nowadays working that obviously becomes a problem because if they can't put them in preschool, well, what's going to happen then. And then obviously what follows is that will move into primary school, high school, but we start with the youngest ones, right, in the preschools.
Now, in this Sunday Telegraph article May 5 by Jane Hansen, I just want to read this one paragraph, "Despite effective vaccines, Australia has been unable to eradicate diseases such as whooping cough because some parents do not immunise, [Meryl chuckles] leaving small babies and children with cancer and other immune-compromising conditions vulnerable." Now, I'd like to just talk about this for a moment, Meryl, in the language here. First, this is double-speak. "Despite effective vaccines, Australia has been unable to eradicate diseases." Now, this, this, this thought process that this writer has written here comes from the angle that vaccines will eradicate diseases and yet she herself is mixed up here with what the vaccine industry actually really propagate because, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the pro-vaccine industry say that vaccines are there to prevent you getting the diseases, not eradicating them? Because there's two different issues here. Number one, protecting the person from the disease, supposedly. The other one is making that disease, basically, go away so it never happens. And yet what we know is that these, these diseases continue regardless as it states here, "...despite effective vaccines, Australia has been unable to eradicate diseases." Do you, can you see the point I'm making here?
Meryl: Yes, there's no logic or no sense in anything that Jane Hansen writes [laughs] about vaccination, to be honest with you. She actually came to one of our seminars and saw Greg Beattie's graphs [Ed: drink!] showing, for instance, the 99% decline in deaths from measles before the vaccine came in yet somehow she couldn't comprehend that. Jane Hansen writes in a, in a constant state of fear when she writes about vaccination so it's very hard to be logical or, or sensible when you're in a state of fear. The fact is, that if the vaccines work and we only have 1.5% of our children unvaccinated, how come the 98.5% are still getting sick? It doesn't make any sense.
Leon: Well, only the 1.5...
Meryl: If the vaccines...
Leon: Only the 1.5% [Meryl: sorry] should be getting sick. I mean, according to their own ideas, if their ideas are right, it should be the 1.5% that are getting sick and dying and not the 98.5%.
Meryl: But it's not and whenever the vaccinated get sick with a disease they've been vaccinated against, they have this convenient whipping-boy in the unvaccinated child and, you know, Jane Hansen seems to think that if we can keep all these unvaccinated kids out of childcare or preschool that they won't be seeing whooping cough in those classes any longer and that's really, you know, a vain, a vain wish. Because we've seen outbreaks of these diseases in communities that are 100% vaccinated. It doesn't matter, like you said, aside from the fact that the vaccine is not going to work in every case, it also doesn't take into account the fact that a certain percentage, and with the whooping cough vaccine, it's about 20% of those who get the vaccine don't get any protection from it, and again I'm using the word protection because that's what the medical community says. I don't actually believe that, that there is much evidence to show that anyone is protected from whooping cough by the vaccine. But that's, that's my, that's my take on the medical literature. But even if you accept what the government says and what the medical community says, only 80% will be protected, leaving 20% unprotected. So if you have 1.5% unvaccinated and 20% of the vaccinated not protected, who is actually causing the outbreaks?
Leon: Exactly. Now I have been, you know, basically looking at vaccination issues every week and if I go back to April 11, "Parents who fail to vaccinate their children should face barriers to enrolling them in school," the AMA says. So this idea of barriers and if I go back to another article in April 11, it says that the NHPA data prompted an outcry. Notice the terminology, 'outcry'. Now, there's probably one group here that said, 'hang on, we'd like a comment on this'. The journalist has probably contacted them and they've said, 'yeah, we'll comment' and that's the outcry. And it's not from the people, this is from the industry.
Leon: One organisation called for vaccinations to be made compulsory, another called for - listen to this - sanctions against people who spread misinformation. So this is the strong-arm of the industry, Meryl, advocating here through their different corporate lobby groups, that advocating sanctions, barriers, penalties, not only against those who choose not to vaccinate, but for those who choose to talk about it, like us now. This conversation is being monitored by the Ministry of Truth and they want sanctions against any conversation that happens to be contrary. And as I have said, over and over again, for me the issue is not, it is not whether or not vaccinations work, it is whether we can have this conversation. Of course, I have my own opinion about the effectiveness because I've done a lot of research and a lot of reading on it, and my position is clear. I have questions and doubts about the whole effectiveness that the industry is selling to the public through their propaganda arms in the mainstream media. And I just think that people are, have been dumbed down to the point whereas if they're not going to actually ask a question about their own health or their children's health, or if we're not allowed to ask a question, we live in a very dangerous place in our society today.
Meryl: Hmmm. Do you know that there are something close to 200 journalists worldwide who get killed every year because they are trying to report the truth. And they live in countries where reporting the truth can cost your life. We live in a democracy and yet these reporters here give away, throw away, that ability they have to report the truth. We've had so many articles come out [chuckles] about the Australian Vaccination Network, so many news programs and television programs. And they have not even asked us for a comment. We have no right to even respond when they're talking about us. The people in Australia who listen to mainstream news are brainwashed. They are just totally brainwashed. Unless they are listening to alternative media or independent media, they really can't even get a handle on what's happening around them.
Leon: Well, exactly. Let's get into this before our time runs out, "The Australian Medical Association angered over claims by president of the AVN." Now, this come out on the Monday, the day after the launch The Daily Telegraph thing. And this was regarding your colleague, Greg Beattie, where it said, "President of the AVN, Greg Beattie, says parents should instead consult books and health professionals who maybe aren't in the medical mainstream. And he warns parents who do vaccinate their children they may be jeopardising their children's health." Now, from what I heard on the airways, I believe he was misquoted, because when I go down in this article, he goes down and he says this, " 'If you read one good book on vaccinations, you'll probably know ten times more than your average GP', he told News Limited in an exclusive interview." Now, ok, that's his stated opinion, he's entitled to it, right? But what I heard all the mainstream broadcasters doing was making fun of him because of his statement that 'if you read one good book'. Now, let's go to the next paragraph which they didn't ever talk about. He said, "I'm not saying don't talk to your GP, I'm saying don't rely on them for your decision. You need to know they are handed their adopted stance. They are taught what to say about vaccination... Look into it yourself and then make up your own mind." So the context of the conversation was, what he was saying was, parents, people, you the people, do your due diligence, understand that medically-trained doctors today have been taught largely pharmaceutical drug medicine, which is different to the concept of natural health. And what, all Greg, he didn't even talk about natural health here, but all he's saying is read, do your research, do your due diligence, don't allow them to make your decision. You make your decision because in my words, you own your own body. Now, what I heard, Meryl, was broadcasters saying, "Don't go to the internet. Don't go investigating anything, they're all chinese rumours. Yes, there are risks..." [Meryl chuckles] "... but we've gotta learn to trust... " listen, "...we've gotta learn to trust the experts."
Meryl: Oh, it's just shocking. One wonders how the doctors can still be considered experts when every 10 minutes, one Australian dies because of either medical error, or adverse reactions to improperly prescribed drugs. It's not as if medicine, western medicine, is harmless. It's not. It's probably one of the most harmful things we've ever had. And yet they're saying don't ask questions and trust us. One thing that the AVN has said from the very beginning and Greg put it so beautifully, is that your doctor is one of a range of people that you should discuss health issues with. They are not the only ones. And this is what has outraged doctors so much because they want a monopoly. They already have a monopoly that is supported and enforced by the government. But that's not enough. They want it so that nobody can ever consult with anyone else except for them. And I've got news for you, they're not going to get it.
Meryl: They're not going to get it because people are not that stupid.
Leon: Well this is an important point and I would like to just say something here to my listeners because we're not talking about here going to a doctor for an assessment, say you've broken a leg, you want to get an x-ray, he tells you you've got a broken leg, this is what you need to do. I believe there is a place for doctors in our lives and in our community. But, in the last 50 years, the, the, the pharmaceutical industry has co-opted the medical industry. And it has become an industry. Where doctors once believed, and this was their oath, "Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine your food." Where did you see that in The Daily Telegraph this week, Meryl? Where is [Meryl chuckles], where is this, where is the whole basis of what doctors began with, meaning, using natural resources from the earth - plants, food, water - all of these natural resources that God's given us to heal people with, where, that, that now's gone out of the question and it's all scripts and drugs.
And I know the pharmaceutical companies have got salespeople that go round visit doctors, give them lavish lunches, pay for their holidays, and the doctors get given drugs to give out to their patients for free from pharmaceutical companies in trials. And what we don't understand is that how the medical industry has become co-opted by the pharmaceutical company today. And there's videos on my website about that, but Meryl, it's almost like there is no other way - if we can return to one of our original points -there is no other way to health apart from pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines administered by your medical doctor.
Meryl: That's, that's, that's the message, the take-home message from the government and the pharmaceutical industry. And fewer and fewer Australians are buying that message and I think what we're seeing now is a backlash to the fact that people are finally starting to wake up and say that they will take care of their own health in their own way, thank you very much.
Leon: Well, Meryl, we're out of time but it's been good to catch up with you again. We wish you all the best for the future and thanks for spending time with us.
Meryl: Thanks so much, Leon, I appreciate it.
Posted: 14 May 2013
Last update: 17 Jun 2014