Anti-vaccine zealots form sham church

0

CONTROVERSIAL anti-vaccination campaigner Meryl Dorey has been encouraging parents to join "sham" churches to exploit a loophole in the government's tough new vaccination policy.


Under new laws introduced on Tuesday, unvaccinated children are banned from childcare centres unless their parents can prove immunisation was against their religion or would cause a dangerous medical reaction.

Ms Dorey, who founded the Australian Vaccination Network, has urged her followers on social media to join the "Church of Conscious Living" as a way of avoiding the vaccination laws.

Health Minister Jillian Skinner was yesterday forced to answer questions in parliament about the loophole in her new laws, but admitted her hands were tied.

"The NSW government is not legally able to prevent people practising a religion or following religious beliefs," Ms Skinner said.

Written By: Alicia Wood
continue to source article at news.com.au

NO COMMENTS

  1. Why is the NSW government unable to stop “religious beliefs” HARMFUL to children? This is like the christian scientists that let their kid die before taking them to the doctor, surely the child is the victim and the parents can be prosecuted and laws can be written?

  2. I always frown upon these so called loopholes. It’s forbidden to endanger someones life, it’s forbidden to endanger your own childs life. But when you endanger your child life by not vaccinating because it conflicts with your religious beliefs then the religious argument prevales. So it’s allowed to endager your child life by a certain percentage x if it’s religious based. What if a religion demands that parents throw their child of a holy cliff into the sea, there is a rescue boat picking up the childern immediately but there still is a certain risk that is harmed or even dies. Let’s say this risk is exactly the same percentage x as it is when not vaccinating a child. Would the religious belief of throwing a child of the holy cliff then also prevale over the endangement of the child?

  3. I cannot find adequate words to express my contempt for Meryl Dorey, but ironically her “faith” in anti-vax charlatanry actually does exhibit many of the characteristics of a (particularly mad) religion!

    Family doctors know when kids are not vaccinated. They should inform social services departments that the children concerned are “at risk” (which they are) and social services should intervene, initially, to counsel the parents and try to get them to have the vaccinations their children need.

    Failing that, take the kids into care and then vaccinate them. These people are child abusers, pure and simple, and we should stop messing about and treat them accordingly. Prosecute a few of the abusive parents to encourage the others…

  4. unvaccinated children are banned from childcare centres unless their parents can prove immunisation was against their religion or would cause a dangerous medical reaction.

    Oh, that makes sense. Because there’s no way that a diseases can be contagious in a childcare centre if immunisation is against the religion of the parents of one of the children in that centre.

  5. I am stunned by the level of ignorance clearly evidenced by this story.

    New South Wales politicians should hang their heads in utter shame. Has none of them heard of Herd Immunity?

    It’s not just about the individual children, people. It’s about all the children.

    That’s why No Jab = No Play is necessary. ANY loophole is a bad loophole. ANY loophole is a stupid loop hole.

    Don’t look at me, I didn’t vote for the IDIOTS, I don’t live in NSW.

    Peace.

  6. I would suggest that the intelligent parents who have had their kids vaccinate demand that no unvaccinated children be admitted. If the morons insist on the state providing childcare for unvaccinated kids then the state should provide a care center restricted to unvaccinated kids.

    Perhaps this could be seen as an experiment, to see which method is most beneficial to the kids.

    Oh, sorry. I forgot these idiots don’t recognise or understand empirical evidence. Silly old me.

  7. ” unless their parents can prove immunization was against their religion “

    Why is this even considered a vaccination dodge in the 21st century?

    The people who drafted this legislation did not see the large loop hole they were creating?

    It passeth all understanding!

  8. Not really surprised that they need to hide behind the back of religion since their world view is a belief – faith without evidence, faith despite evidence to the contrary – nothing more. When you don’t have evidence to back up your claims, you need to find a loophole to be exempt from proving your views.

  9. In the comments of the article, it clearly shows that it’s going to take a very long time to correct misinformation, eg:

    “Do you ever thinking of the pain of the Autistic children’s parents? Which I believe was caused by vaccine. I would rather my daughter take the risks than getting autism. If I can choose.”

  10. Australian daycare centres are something I’ve had personal experience of, but had no idea that un immunised children were allowed to attend daycare – bypassing immunisation because of a religious exemption is bad enough but expecting your child to then attend daycare is a arrogant risk of other kids health….this is prejudice not a loophole ? However Non religious parents also choose to not immunise their children and the parent in me understands all of their dilemma, they’re scared it may harm the child, but we ultimately have little control over disease all over the city, not just daycares and can only hope that most of the population is immunised. Should un – immunised people be held accountable if disease outbreak occurred ? or should Immunisation be enforced among everyone with no exemptions ?

  11. A new church being created as a sham? They are ALL created as a sham. Be that as it may, if you really want to expose your kids to such dangers, while I see that many feel it’s their right, if you use such a loophole, and you put another child at risk, then the law MUST at the same time, expose you to criminal penalties. A death should be considered murder or manslaughter, or something that involves a long stretch of jail time. With the proviso that you CANNOT use your religious exemption as a legal defense. Then again, those sham religions would fight that too.

  12. The religious exemption precedent is too well established elsewhere. Don’t want to comply with an institutional dress code? Get religion. Don’t want to be fined for not wearing a bicycle helmet? Get a religion (and accompanying headwear). Want to sneak off to a quiet place and have a “commune” on your boss’s time? Get religion. Don’t want your org to pay taxes? Get religion.

    We need to look at why “religion” “needs” to be an exemption. This translates to “is it important that everybody complies (who is able to), or should a choice-based exemption be allowed?”

    (1) In some cases, we should just leave a loophole for anybody to use if they feel strongly enough to want to use it, for whatever reason. Have them fill in a 50 page document, get a JP to sign it, pay a token fee, and voila you’re exempt. That should cover bicycle helmets.

    (2) In some cases, there should be no choice-based exemptions (medical, financial or other concrete exemptions may apply).

    Paying taxes, and having children vaccinated should be in this latter category, and people should not be exempted just because they believe in something, or (in practice) they say they believe in something. Whether that something is a phantasmagorical fairy tale, or pseudoscientific paranoid conspiracy theories, it really doesn’t matter.

  13. This is ridiculous! These people certainly act religiously so they must be right! All sorts of groups may jump on the band-wagon and found religions.Oh! They have already. So many people who support the AVN say they would rather risk it than vaccinate their children.Such selfishness!

  14. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!!

    This woman is carrying a lethal parasite! The “faith fluke”; which is causing her to behave aberrantly; for everyone elses sake she must be immediately quarantined.

    • In reply to #22 by Stafford Gordon:

      UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!!

      This woman is carrying a lethal parasite! The “faith fluke”; which is causing her to behave aberrantly; for everyone elses sake she must be immediately quarantined.

      I think she has just confirmed her psychotic condition and danger to the community! Protective custody would seem appropriate! (As with unlicensed, serial drunken, or dangerous, drivers).

  15. In Western Australia when Jehovah’s Witnesses turn up at hospital with a sick child, the first thing that is done is to contact the duty JP at police headquarters. There is on on duty 24/7. The kid is made a ward of court on the spot and the doctors can get on with their job without fear of Christian legal revenge. Why can’t the same sort of procedure be used in relation to vaccination?

    The loonies and bible bashers are always finding new territory on which to parctice their attention seeking behaviours, its about time that civil society cuts to the chase and develops a blanket strategy to stop them before they get started. There’s enough problems in the world without having to waste time on their self-centred nonsense.

  16. Could a childcare operator not take the position “We would be happy to admit your child, Mr. and Mrs. Anti-vaccine, but you must understand that the parents of the other children have warned us that if we do, they will withdraw their children en masse, for fear THEIR children will be exposed to potential MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) carriers, like your child. They are also concerned about their children contacting smallpox, chicken pox, tetanus, polio and other diseases against which your child may not have been vaccinated as well. Our business would have to shut down. We respect your right to hold religious beliefs, but unless you are willing to fund our entire operating budget, our hands are tied. You surely understand we cannot put our entire organisation at risk, and cause the layoffs of most of our staff, just to accommodate your one un-vaccinated child. Perhaps you can help fund alternative vaccinations to those you find objectionable, that pass scrutiny by the Ministry of Health, and then these other parents would agree to keep their children here. Or, if you can find enough un-vaccinated children like yours, we would consider setting up a unique childcare facility for you, which vaccinated children would be most unlikely to attend. You know, so your children aren’t exposed to autism. They would still, of course, be exposed to MMR.”

  17. In reply to #26 by ukantic:

    In reply to #24 by Kevin Murrell:

    PS…. Sorry I spelt “practise” wrong.

    If the edit function has timed out, you can always copy the original comment to the clipboard, delete the comment and then paste it into a fresh one. Not forgetting to correct the original error(s) of course.

    Thanks.. I usually write stuff in Word, then copy it to here. I typed it in directly this time as I was in a hurry and didn’t notice my lapse until I had posted it.

  18. In reply to #32 by Stevehill:

    In reply to #30 by AsylumWarden:The comments section of that page is truly worrying…I know. I tried to add one, but it did not make the cut.

    I’ve also attempted a comment, I guess we wait and see if any of them get through.

  19. The politicians really are afraid to upset anyone – even those dangerous to society – aren’t they?

    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. – Richard Feynman

  20. It should be mandatory for all children to be immunised (unless they cannot be for medical reasons). It’s a public health issue – you can’t play chicken with these diseases, they can kill. Every child has a right to be protected from preventable disease. These anti-vaccers who are not vaccinating their kids are incredibly arrogant, ignorant, delusional and most of all, selfish. They live in a much larger community (society) than their own little social/”religious” club. They should start behaving as such. It’s called responsibility.

    • In reply to #35 by I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing:

      It should be mandatory for all children to be immunised (unless they cannot be for medical reasons). It’s a public health issue – you can’t play chicken with these diseases, they can kill. Every child has a right to be protected from preventable disease. These anti-vaccers who are not vaccinating th…

      There is a trade off between personal rights and the requirements of society. In the US we go overboard to preserve personal liberty, no doubt about it. The idea that owning a gun for example is some kind of holy right is just insane given all the data that you are much more at risk with a gun in your house then without one. But on this issue I’m not so sure. What if someone really doesn’t want a vaccine? Do we arrest them? Do we have police and doctors go into their house hold them down and force a needle into their arm? And if we do some of them will resist and if they are in the US they will have at least one gun. Is it worth death or injury to a few policemen or doctors every year to get 100% immunity? I’m no expert on the topic but from what I understand you can get virtually 100% immunity as long as a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated. I think in this case it makes more sense to focus on education and incentives rather than force.

      • In reply to #36 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #35 by I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing:

        It should be mandatory for all children to be immunised (unless they cannot be for medical reasons). It’s a public health issue – you can’t play chicken with these diseases, they can kill. Every child has a right to be protected from preventa…

        Making it mandatory doesn’t necessarily mean forcing needles into their arms. It may just mean some social sanctions on the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. So this “no jab no play” would be one. Lots of things in society are mandatory – e.g. having a driving license in order to drive is mandatory. And when referring to mandatory vaccinations I’m thinking specifically of children. If an adult chooses not to have a vaccination well that’s their choice, but a child is too young to make an informed (or ignorant) choice about it. They are also much more vulnerable and susceptible to these childhood diseases than adults, although adults can also sometimes die from things like measles. As for the herd immunity, that will quickly disappear if the anti-vaccers get their way. The recent outbreak of measles in Swansea demonstrated that. It’s in no-one’s interests, not the families, society at large and least of all the children themselves to allow them to be exposed to these preventable killers. And that includes the anti-vaccers, a fact they just don’t seem to realize.

        • In reply to #37 by I Find Your Lack of Faith Disturbing:

          Making it mandatory doesn’t necessarily mean forcing needles into their arms. It may just mean some social sanctions on the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. So this “no jab no play” would be one. Lots of things in society are mandatory – e.g. having a driving license in order to drive is mandatory. And when referring to mandatory vaccinations I’m thinking specifically of children. If an adult chooses not to have a vaccination well that’s their choice, but a child is too young to make an informed (or ignorant) choice about it.

          It is already mandatory for some people in some circumstances!

          IMPORTANT NOTICE TO IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS CONCERNING VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS

          United States immigration law requires immigrant visa applicants to obtain certain vaccinations (listed below) prior to the issuance of an immigrant visa. Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations of immigrant visa applicants are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met the vaccination requirements, or that it is medically inappropriate for the visa applicant to receive one or more of the listed vaccinations:

          • Hepatitis A
          • Hepatitis B
          • Influenza
          • Influenza type b (Hib)
          • Measles
          • Meningococcal
          • Mumps
          • Pneumococcal
          • Pertussis
          • Polio
          • Rotavirus
          • Rubella
          • Tetanus and diphtheria toxoids
          • Varicella

          In order to assist the panel physican, and to avoid delays in the processing of an immigrant visa, all immigrant visa applicants should have their vaccination records available for the panel physician’s review at the time of the immigrant medical examination. Visa applicants should consult with their regular health care provider to obtain a copy of their immunization record, if one is available. If you do not have a vaccination record, the panel physician will work with you to determine which vaccinations you may need to meet the requirement. Certain waivers of the vaccination requirement are available upon the recommendation of the panel physician.

          Only a physician can determine which of the listed vaccinations are medically appropriate for you, given your age, medical history and current medical condition.

          Other countries may have different requirements.

  21. Ummmm. Religion is commerce. She asked Caesar permission to form a corporation, a church, in order to dodge the bullet? Well, if the government tells its people to do something they must comply. If they have requested government`s permission they are yoked to government. Is she for real or is this a trap?

Leave a Reply