Consumercide

Consumercidal Tidbit

I had one conversation with an overseas mother whose child had been exposed to chickenpox and was taken to the doctor with a fever. The doctor thought it would be chickenpox, given the known exposure and time frame, and told the mother to treat with paracetamol. The doctor then had a brainwave, and gave this child an MMR shot because it would “save” the mother coming back in three weeks’ time. The mother did as told, and for several days, the child’s fever was treated as specified by the doctor. Not only did the child get chickenpox, but got measles as well, had seizures, and died.

In the child’s post-mortem, neither the role of paracetamol, nor of MMR was considered relevant to the cause of death, which was specified as “chickenpox”. I believe the role of both paracetamol and the MMR were very relevant as factors in this child’s death, and that such a post mortem reveals the ignorance and contempt that many doctors have to this day, to the immunosuppressive role of fever reducers, or to any suggestion that a sick child should never be vaccinated.

Hilary Butler, "From One Prick to Another".

The News
Website Credibility PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Sunday, 10 October 2010 18:59
This is an enquiry e-mail via http://consumercide.com/js/ from:
Neil

On 10/9/2010 11:23, Neil wrote:

What is the credibility of this website? I am trying to use this for a debate speech.

That's a big question, as it's a substantial site with lots of varied sources of information. You need to work it out for yourself. For my part I post things from what I consider to be credible sources of information, or at least have something valuable to say. Indeed they might even shoot themselves in the foot in part of what they have to say, but be valid in other areas. In the end, it is for the reader to decide.

Check out the quotes section of the site, and judge if those authors are credible based upon their credentials and experience. Or better still, evaluate what they are saying based upon the knowledge that you are forming on the topic that you are enquiring upon. My site deals with arenas of controversy, and what is considered consensually credible might not actually be the truth, and vice-versa. Consensus and credibility should not, but often are conflated. A credible source one week can be spouting misinformation the next: it might depend on a balance of power within an entity, as different people with different agendas effect outcomes of organizations in different ways. I ask you, what is the credibility of an orthodox medical institution's website, when it recommends a vaccine that goes on to cause developmental disorders in thousands, or tens of thousands of children? What's the credibility of a scientific paper which finds no association between gigahertz electromagnetic radiation and harm to the human body, when put out by scientists funded by the telcos? What's the credibility of the "science" that is put in place purely in order to cover up pharmaceutical (etc.) adverse reactions, even if it is gushed forth from every mass media outlet as gospel? Glitz, glamour and status in presentation/publishing do not necessarily enhance factuality.

Don't buy into this idea that every second thing on the web is garbage... that is a jingoistic catch phrase for the shallow thinkers, and it serves certain nefarious elements of the population too well. What the web is--is free speech. Vested interests want free speech stifled, and have done so well before the first mass communication, in the form of the invention of the printing press. They also want the web controlled. I say to you Neil, do the research, find out the truth as you see it and then use that in your debates and in your understanding of what occurs. Your debating skills will be at their pinnacle when you understand the largest possible realm of what you have researched and are passionate about your conclusions. Good luck.

Consumercide
Last Updated ( Saturday, 04 February 2012 17:47 )
 
Documents Repository Now Beginning to Hold Files PDF Print E-mail
Written by No editor greed   
Saturday, 18 October 2008 21:54
The Documents Repository is now beginning to hold files, all health related at this early stage. Please have a read of some of the compelling documents on vaccine damage.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 18 October 2008 22:08 )
 
Quoting Tim O'Shea PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Saturday, 13 September 2008 19:05

Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the commercial angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and die.

Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science pretends there were no flaws.

It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk science," it is in a context of defending something that may threaten either the environment or our health.

The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and uncertainty so that they'll watch again tomorrow and be subjected to the same advertising.

Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound like they were all written by the same guy? And this guy just graduated from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that everything is going to be fine...

Read Perceptions by Dr Tim O'Shea

 

Last Updated ( Saturday, 13 September 2008 20:00 )
 
They're our children - or are they? Health fascism in Australia PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 17:14
From recent AVN newsletter

What assumptions do we make when having and raising children? Do we assume that because we birth these babies, we actually get to make decisions about them as well? Do we assume that we can choose what to feed our children, how to clothe them, how to care for them and what to teach them?

If so, the government of Australia seems to have other ideas. As evidenced by the desperate struggle of a NSW family who don't want to administer a hepatitis B vaccine to their newborn child and are currently in hiding as a result, when it comes to our children, we really have very little say about their care. If we dare to oppose 'mainstream' medical orders, the ramifications could be loss of custody or arrest. And yes, this is Australia we're talking about though it sounds more like something that might occur in a country like North Korea or the former Soviet Union.

Normally when we talk about doctors and patients, we refer to medical advice. But advice is something that can be taken or left - something that is offered. Orders are things that must be obeyed and this is what the doctors in the hospital and the Department of Community Services (DoCS) have given this family - an order to vaccinate or lose their child.

The obvious outcome of this sort of policy is a widening of the powers of the government via their strongmen (and women) in DoCS and the Department of Health.

Want to be a vegetarian or a vegan? Sorry, the mainstream opinion is that these lifestyle choices are not healthy for children so you can be faced with charges of child abuse. Want to home school? No way! You need to send your children to a State-accredited school. How about extended breastfeeding past two years of age? Well, the USA has already set a precedent saying that this is child abuse so we won't be far behind. And the family bed? Everyone knows that's dangerous so forget about it.

Big brother is in our homes; he is giving us orders which we must obey and there is really only one way to fight this - one way in which to preserve our rights as parents and our children's rights to a healthy, interference-free life. That is through the courts and via lobbying of our state governments in NSW and QLD to start - and other states as our movement for freedom grows and picks up steam.

The information in this e-newsletter is vitally important so please - forward this on to friends and family. There is a link below where you can do this or just hit forward in your email program (though the formatting will be better if you forward it via the link).

News articles on the NSW situation
mother and babyWe have just started to put the information about this case up on our web site. Please click here to read a chronology of articles that have appeared in the mainstream media about this issue since it started.

Most of these stories were as a result of interviews with the AVN since the family has received legal advice not to speak with the media at this point in time. We do expect further comment in the near future.

Just to refresh your memory, this case in NSW concerns a family with a newborn baby. The mother is a hepatitis B carrier and when the baby was born in the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, the doctors decided that they had the right to force this child to be vaccinated. When the parents refused the vaccine, DoCS was called in and a Supreme Court order was taken out to take the child and get it vaccinated against the wishes of the parents. They have been in hiding ever since.

A Tale of Two Children
Hands tiedIs the case in NSW an isolated incident? We at the AVN don't believe that it is and since the first family made contact with us, we have spoken with and are trying to help another family in QLD.

Brenton and his wife Suzanne* have 2 older children who were fully vaccinated. They never questioned vaccination. When their youngest child, a son, was born 9 weeks premature, he was still given a Hep B shot at birth and immediately became ill. For the next few weeks, he was continually at the doctor's office, the ambulance station which was right across the street from where this family lived and the hospital.

At about 5 weeks of age, this premmie baby suffered a massive seizure. He had just been seen by the paramedics at the ambulance station that morning and when his seizure started, his family took him straight to hospital. The head of the Scan Team 'examined' this child and declared that he had been shaken. Sean and his wife were reported to DoCS. While their son, who became blind and developed cerebral palsy as a result of his reaction - was clinging to life in the hospital, police showed up and took all of this couple's children away from them and charged them with 2 counts of grievous bodily harm.

This case has been in the courts for 2 1/2 years. At first, the children were in foster care, but when they started to show up with unexplained burns and bruises, Suzanne's mother sued for and won custody. Brenton and his wife have been able to visit the children but they are not allowed to be alone with them.

Suzanne's mother mortgaged her home and Brenton and Suzanne had to give up their business in order to be available for court. They have so far spent $107,000 on their defence and are flat broke at this point in time.

During their ordeal with DoCS, their local MP who they approached for help showed them great sympathy and tried to do what he could to help. He told Brenton that DoCS is a law unto itself.

In his court case, DoCS was required to get a doctor to write a report on this baby. Dr Archie Kalokerinos was that doctor. He has long been known as an advocate for free vaccination choice. Archie's report stated that the child was injured by the Hep B vaccine and that he was suffering from scurvy (caused by vaccination) at the time of his worst symptoms - a diagnosis that was actually included in the hospital record though the doctors were not happy that the parents had seen this and may have removed it - I am not sure on this point.

When Archie's information was presented, DoCS discounted it by saying that Archie was just a GP and an old geriatric whose opinion didn't count. So much for their claims of having to go with medical opinion! It seems they only have to go with opinion when it agrees with them!

Anyway, the head of scan team who initially made the accusation and got this family charged with GBH, stated that the baby had multiple fractures and broken ribs. It was only upon cross-examination that it was discovered that no x-rays had ever been taken of this baby so the accusations of fractures had no basis in fact.

Last week, Brenton's case was finally finished and he and his wife, totally broke and devastated after 2 1/2 years without their kids, were exonerated. Thinking that their troubles were over and they could just get their family back together and try to go on, they asked to get custody of their children.

DoCS however had other ideas. They wanted to give this already Hep B vaccine damaged child another Hep B vaccine. Of course, the parents are refusing because they are afraid that another shot will kill this poor child. DOCS has said that this refusal constitutes a 'failure to provide the necessities of life' and they are threatening to take the children off of the grandmother and get them adopted out.

This family is totally broke and their lawyer who has represented them over this period of time says that he can't do any more at this point and anything he could do would cost an additional $8,000. The AVN has found another solicitor to help Brenton's family and this case, if won, will set a fantastic precedent in the state of QLD which all of us will benefit from - not just Brenton and his family. It will however, cost tens of thousands of dollars to run - dollars which neither Brenton nor the AVN has at the present time.

Please click on the links either above or below and donate to our legal 'Fighting Fund' and consider giving a small additional amount to the AVN to help us continue the very important work we are doing to protect all Australians from forced vaccination.

*names have been changed


Open the floodgates
In general, families that have been victimised by DoCS and the medical community are shell-shocked and terrified. They all feel as though they are the only ones who have ever been in this situation and have no contact with others. In an effort to discover how widespread the problem of forced vaccination is, the AVN has taken out the following notice in the Weekend Australian (August 30th to 31st).

If by forwarding this email on to others, we are able to contact others who have also suffered from this sort of discrimination, it would be very informative and also helpful in fighting against these illegal acts.

 
Definition of Consumerism PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 02:58

Consumerism: An attempt to modify the most outrageous excesses of commodity capitalism by guarding the consumer against fraud, shoddy products, poisonous or otherwise dangerous foods, toys, medicines and tools. Led by such admirable people as Ralph Nader, consumerism has two flaws: (1) it is merely a reform of capitalism rather than an end to it and (2) it implicitly assumes that private consumption is the central reason for human existence.  -from the online Dictionary of Critical Sociology link

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2