“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
— Voltaire
Life is a matter of opinion.
If you disagree—that just serves to prove the point.
Where are the facts? Where is the justice? Both are hidden within a world of information not necessarily based on truth.
One opinion I used to hold but no longer do is that we have basic human rights; rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to choose whether or not you give your newborn baby twelve needles.
Watching 60 Minutes (Australia) the other night, I was reminded why I no longer believe we have true freedom of choice—even those of us fortunate enough to live in the developed ‘western’ world.
‘Getting The Point’, 60 Minutes’ story about the dangers of choosing not to inoculate your baby was astounding in its total lack of objectivity. The reporter, Ellen Fanning, displayed utter contempt for anyone voicing an opposing opinion.
Not that we heard much of what 76-year-old, Dr Viera Scheibner had to say, which seemed to be that the body had to be given a chance to develop its own immunity before dealing with chemical cocktails.
It wasn’t only the kind doctor who was cut short though. A health researcher who has spent years studying the side effects of various vaccines and an Ozzie Mum concerned for her children were also given the short end of Fanning’s pointy stick.
Obviously controversy is good for ratings and it was a very emotive story. But it was not reporting in any ‘both sides of the coin’ sense. Fanning’s story ended up being about simply one thing: how crazy anybody must be to even question whether inoculation is right for them and their baby.
Clearly the producers of 60 Minutes felt only the pro-vaccination side of this story needed to be told. And what compassionate human being would ever choose to take the side portrayed as being against saving innocent lives?
Fanning’s condescension was perhaps best displayed when she expressed her wonder at the way normal, every day Australians were taking it upon themselves to consider the pros and cons of inoculation. After speaking with a Mother who chose not to have her second and third child injected (after her first had an adverse reaction), the reporter, also a mother, gave her opinion thus:
“While Meredith is not a member of any anti-vaccine networks, it’s striking that their ideas have penetrated all the way through to her in suburban Australia.”
Why is it ‘striking‘, Mother Fanning? Can’t non-reporters from ‘suburban Australia’ delve into issues for themselves? Are they not within their rights to question whether they want to put mercury and formaldehyde (the base substances of many immunisation shots) into their babies?
Fanning also dropped the ‘conspiracy’ buzz word, accusing the well spoken mother (who chose to take her firstborn’s negative reaction as a warning for her other children) of believing in one.
Without getting into a discussion of the known unknowns—most notably how we do not yet know the longterm effects of multiple vaccinations—my question is simply this: what makes having an alternative opinion crazy? Aren’t we each entitled to our own opinion? Don’t we have the freedom to choose—without judgement?
No. We don’t.
If you stray outside the accepted norm you will be judged by family, friends and total strangers. The message shows like this give out is clear: stay within the norm; do what we say is right; do not question. And, within mainstream media, this repression of alternative opinion begins before our birth.
What chance does a baby have to defend itself?
Fear is used to shepherd the masses into a long line at the pharmaceutical company teat. The majority of people are either unwilling to question or unable to comprehensively process the misinformation presented as fact and become nothing more than guinea pigs.
History has proven what tragedy results from taking wonder drugs like Thalidomide (which, to my non-scientist’s ears, sounds a lot like formaldehyde). Only time will tell what new ‘must-have’ vaccinations, administered before babies own immune systems have begun to function properly, will lead to.
There are those who claim to have scientific proof to justify puncturing newborns with holes and filling babies with chemicals, but there are also many of a different opinion.
Not that we heard those opinions on 60 Minutes’ ‘Getting The Point’.
Personally, I think it is good to question; especially someone jabbing at you with a needle containing monkey kidney cells and aborted fetal tissue.
* Above is a youtube video of a USA 60 Minutes report offering another view on government sanctioned vaccination policy.
