HubPages

Saturday, 14 February 2015

I am a biological terrorist because my kids didn’t get a vaccine

I am a biological terrorist because my kids didn’t get a vaccine

Yesterday my wife took the twins to the doctor for a checkup. They wanted to start our babies on their “vaccination schedule,” but, oddly, our schedule differs slightly from the one predetermined by the medical establishment. I’m not against all vaccines, but I am strongly opposed to the idea of blindly handing our babies over to the nurse and saying, “Here! Pump whatever chemicals you want into them. I’ll be in the lobby reading a Highlights magazine, give me a holler when it’s over.” In other words, vaccinating is a conscious decision that my wife and I wish to make, not one with which we will passively cooperate.
That said, one of the vaccines we chose to forgo is the Hepatitis B immunization. I mentioned that on Friday’s show and it elicited many responses from folks who are, apparently, quite offended that we didn’t consult with them before making a choice about our children’s medical treatment. You know, all parenting decisions you make these days must be debated in front of the People’s Peanut Gallery, where the verdicts are swift and harsh. Here’s one email I received, it’s an apt representation of several other similar messages:
Matt,
Your conspiracy theories about vaccinations would make me laugh if they weren’t so infuriating. If you don’t get your children vaccinated for Hepatitis B or any other disease, YOU PUT EVERYONE AT RISK JACKASS. I get so sick of you antivaccination retards. Society gets rid of diseases when everyone comes together and vaccinates. I don’t want my child to get sick just because you don’t understand science. There are many ways to get Hep B and people get it all the time without have sex aand you’ve now put your child at risk for it which puts everyone at risk. Moron. Get them vaccinatedstop being stupid. You are a horrible parent and you’re putting your kids at risk idiot.
– Kevin

Against my better judgment, I responded to Kevin. I’m posting it here as a general response to all of the other Kevins of the world.
Dear Kevin,
I’m not a conspiracy theorist — I’m a conspirator. You see, about a year ago my wife and I conspired to conceive children. I won’t go into detail about the steps we took to bring this plot to fruition, but suffice it to say that our plan succeeded. Now, as the result of this dastardly scheme, we are “parents”. This parental title has dangerous implications; it gives us the terrifying ability to do all sorts of things. For instance, most horrifically, we can make decisions about our kids’ well being and health care without conferring with the public, the government, the community, society, or even you.
Also, we are able to forgo vaccinations so that we can turn our children into biological weapons, which is the clear intention of anyone who doesn’t keep their kids “up to date” on their shots.
Other than that, I’m not sure what conspiracy you’re referring to. When I speak of the potential adverse side effects of the Hep B vaccine, or the studies linking it to liver and brain damage, or the obvious risks involved anytime you inject disease-causing organisms into the body of a small child, I am not proposing a “conspiracy,” nor am I theorizing anything. I am not a “no vaccines at all” type of person, but I don’t think you’re in a position to ridicule those folks if you’re in the “any and every vaccine is automatically OK with me, and I’ll let the doctors give it to my child without doing any research about it beforehand” camp.
I don’t judge you for falling in line and following the trends — even when the trend involves introducing potentially dangerous chemicals to the undeveloped immune system of your infant children — but I do lament how your sort tends to lash out mindlessly at anyone who strays from the “normal” path. When I call your behavior “mindless,” I don’t mean it as an insult. I mean it as an observation. After all, there certainly isn’t anything thoughtful or rational in shouting about how your child is directly at risk of contracting an STD because my kids didn’t get a vaccine.
Hepatitis B is, in fact, primarily a sexually transmitted disease. In most cases, you contract it by making unhealthy lifestyle choices. I notice that, in your world, our “society” should work to eradicate illnesses by turning our babies into lab rats, rather than by telling adults to stop making foolish and destructive decisions. Why do you yell at my family for choosing to forgo an unnecessary medical treatment that would expose my children to high levels of aluminum, and not at the legions of people who refuse to forgo promiscuous sex and intravenous drugs? I have to be honest, I’m somewhat disturbed by the implication that all of our children are budding drug addicts and philanderers, so we ought to immunize them in anticipation of this eventuality.
There are other ways to get this virus, I grant you. Prison guards who have fecal matter and urine hurled at their faces all day are in a high risk category. Folks who work in hospitals are logically required to be vaccinated. A child whose mother has the disease can, unfortunately, contract it. You hear about rare cases of patients in hospitals coming out of a medical procedure or blood transfusion with Hepatitis B, but then again, if you can’t trust your doctor to give you blood that isn’t tainted with a chronic illness, you probably shouldn’t trust him to give shots to your baby. If you do a lot of traveling in third world countries, that will likely increase your Hep B chances as well.
But it’s simply ridiculous to assume that every human being in the country has an equal shot at becoming Hep B positive. You’re at risk if you put yourself in, or are put in, a risky situation. Plain and simple. Even the CDC — hardly a bastion of anti-vaccination propaganda — has to go to extraordinary lengths to explain how the average baby might come down with a dangerous STD. Their “Hepatitis B fact sheet” tells us the virus is spread to children when their mother is infected, or when they are bitten by an infected person. They also list “eating food chewed by an infected person” and “sharing a toothbrush with an infected person.”
Let’s break these down, shall we? We’ve already covered the infected mother scenario. My wife doesn’t have Hepatitis B, not that it’s any of your business. I’m not sure if your kid typically eats food chewed by strangers, but my children are under a strict “only you chew your food” rule. I think it’s pretty easy to avoid sharing a toothbrush with a Hepatitis B carrier, in fact it’s easy to avoid sharing a tooth brush with anyone. As for being gnawed on by a sick person, how often do you think a child gets Hepatitis that way? Now contrast that likelihood with the chance of suffering an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and tell me which is cause for greater concern?
You may dispute the link between vaccines and autism, or vaccines and SIDS, but you can’t dispute the non-debatable link between risky decisions and diseases like Hepatitis B. You’re exposed to Hep B if you put yourself in a compromising situation, and usually that involves having random sex or using hardcore drugs. As far as I know, nobody has ever been crossing the street on some random morning only to be suddenly run over by a Hepatitis B truck. There’s nothing especially surprising about Hepatitis B and how it’s spread.
For the record, despite my stance on the vaccine, I am actually very intent on preventing my kids from getting Hepatitis. But my prevention strategy involves raising them and teaching them not to make horribly self destructive decisions. Outside of that, if they grow up and decide they’d like to work in a hospital or a prison, or they sign up for a mission trip to Ethiopia, then it might be time to talk about expanding their “vaccination schedule.”
Kevin, let me do you a favor and give you a tip for the next time you decide to valiantly defend the honor of prescription drug companies and their miraculous vaccines: If you want to convince people like me — that is, people who aren’t terribly worried about gaining the approval of the peanut gallery — you best abandon the “get vaccines for the sake of the collective” argument. Call me selfish or narcissistic, but I don’t parent my children based on what I think my neighbors might want me to do. Parenting isn’t a democracy. It isn’t up for a vote. Never in a thousand years would I force my children to undergo a medical procedure simply for the sake of being a cultural team player. If you see it that way, please email me the next time you take your kid to the orthodontist. I’m going to need a vote before you make any decisions about braces or retainers.
There are many factors that have contributed to this special brand of lunacy where we pretend that chronic illnesses like Hepatitis B can’t be easily avoided by adjusting our lifestyles and making healthy choices, but I think intellectual laziness and cowardice play a significant part. It’s the same thing that entices health teachers and politicians to make the maniacal claim that HIV is an “equal opportunity disease.” We’re deathly afraid of coming anywhere near anything that might be construed as — GASP! — moralizing. Instead we go around babbling about how everything impacts everyone in the same way, and our own decisions are never to blame when bad things happen.
You called me a bad parent, so I guess this is the part where I’m supposed to stick my tongue out and call you a bad parent in return, and then we can spend the next 45 minutes shooting spitballs at each other in the back of the classroom. But I don’t want to play that game because, for all I know, you’re a great parent. I’m not a big fan of your communication skills, nor do I find you to be the most critical of thinkers, and I’m not particularly inspired by your grammar and sentence structure, but I’m betting you still love your children and strive to do what you think is best for them. If that includes getting your infants immunized against STDs, then Godspeed. I don’t have a say in the matter, and I pray that it stays that way. My only very humble suggestion is that you MAKE the DECISIONS, instead of “going along with it” because the doctor will give you a dirty look if you don’t.
Also, as a general rule, always proofread when you want to call someone else an idiot.
God bless,
Matt

Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/07/i-am-a-biological-terrorist-because-my-kids-didnt-get-a-vaccine/#1z7LosH3OlecOdgg.99

Bringing Much-Needed Sanity to the Vaccine Debate

I’ve tried to stay away from the vaccine debate, but it’s reached a psychological tipping point for me.
Watching the back-and-forth on social media alone has made it clear that there are massive critical thinking issues. And if we’re going to get to any sort of agreement or respect between the camps, those critical thinking issues have to end.
As the title says, I want to bring sanity to the discussion. That doesn’t mean I want to change your position on vaccines…it means I want people to stop acting irrationally.
So, while this is quite random, here’s what needs to be addressed in order to restore sanity…

Let’s fix the misuse of the word “consensus.”


The Definition: An idea or opinion that is shared by *all* the people in a group. (Edit: Yes, I’m fully aware of how it’s *commonly* used. I’m also emphasizing this point because…)
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: An idea or opinion that is shared by *a majority* of the people in a group (as the primary argument to shout down oppositional opinions and crowd out oppositional research).
Why it matters: There have been countless times in history where the majority of scientists and researchers agreed…and were wrong. Also, using the term “consensus” in this way is always dangerous in the realm of scientific research because there is an automatic obedience to authority for the simple reason that most people are not truly educated on complex matters of science.
A famous example of the consensus error is called the Semmelweis Reflex. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who found—and argued—that hand-washing by doctors reduced childbed fever mortality rates ten-fold.
It turns out that medical doctors (the trusted authority) used to perform autopsies and then see patients, including pregnant women, without washing their hands. This was the widely accepted practice at the time and Semmelweis objected to it. He was eventually shouted down and run into an insane asylum (literally) by his peers for advocating something that is blatantly obvious to us today.
The “consensus” argument was used as a weapon to defeat Semmelweis. But “consensus” is not an argument and using it as one is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue for the validity of vaccination, do so. But saying, “there’s a scientific consensus” isn’t a valid argument, especially when you’re misusing the word “consensus.”

While we’re at it, let’s make sure we’re using the word “eradicated” correctly.


The definition: destroy completely; put an end to.
How it’s used in the vaccine debate: It was significantly reduced.




According to the CDC, Measles has never been eradicated, though the term is thrown around pretty loosely.
It should also be noted that this is a global economy. We live in a time of planes and boats. Things arrive here from other countries.
In other words, blaming the “OUTBREAK!” on unvaccinated people in the U.S. is a bit of a stretch.
This also doesn’t take into account that there is a very legitimate debate about the cause of the decline of measles cases and deaths. It should not (even though it is) be automatically assumed that the vaccine ended the epidemic. There is no “consensus” on that.
If you want credibility, you can’t misuse terms that have very concrete definitions. That’s one of the first symptoms of appealing to emotion and debate manipulation.

Let’s get something else out of the way: violence can’t be your answer.


Not everyone advocates for vaccinating people against their will, but many do. One of the [legitimate] fears among those who don’t vaccinate is that vaccine advocates will use the power of government to force vaccination compliance.
If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t possibly support this because it directly contradicts your own beliefs about your body and your rights.
Even though many people have never heard of the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), they agree with it when it’s presented to them.
Forced vaccination does not adhere to the NAP. If you agree with the NAP and are also for forced vaccination, you’re contradicting your own beliefs.
We’re all adults here. Sell your position with reason, don’t cram it down people’s throats (or lock them in rooms and inject their children with it).
I guess this is a good place to throw in this, too: If you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, then you can’t be anti-choice when it comes to vaccines. That’s just silliness. “It’s my body” can’t only apply to killing babies.

Reality: Both sides want the same thing.


An unfortunate charge often wielded by vaccine advocates is that those who choose not to vaccinate are “reckless,” “stupid,” and “thoughtlessly endangering others.”
Vaccine advocates are vehemently protective of their family…and so are the parents who choose not to vaccinate. Both sides want the same thing: to make the best decision possible for their family.
A key difference is that it often takes more thought to reject the status quo than it does to accept it. This is especially true when you understand that our society’s foundation is one of blind obedience—that’s what’s taught to the vast majority of our population through 13+ years of public schooling.
Obedience to authority is why the Stanford Prison Experiment worked and it’s why the Milgram Experiment worked.
One of the worst things you can be in life is blindly obedient to authority. It’s a forfeiture of your personhood—an acknowledgement of your nothingness.
So if you’re a vaccine advocate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research. Otherwise, you’re not just injecting your loved ones with something you know relatively nothing about, you’re doing so at the behest of a group of people you largely know nothing about.
If you choose not to vaccinate, I certainly hope you’ve done extensive research as well. Otherwise, you’re potentially putting your family members at risk.

Reality: Only one side has to overcome two significant challenges: the political motive and the profit motive.

(And often those two things are one in the same).


Question One: Do doctors receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Two: Does the government receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Question Three: Do researchers and educators receive any benefits from vaccine manufacturers?
Those are important questions, wouldn’t you say? Do you know the answer? Just be honest with yourself.
If you’re a vaccine advocate and you don’t have a confident answer to all three of those questions, that’s a bit reckless.
Anyone who thinks the medical establishment wouldn’t [almost] universally recommend something that’s [almost] totally unnecessary hasn’t looked into cholesterol and statin drugs or the [non] link between saturated fat and heart disease.*
*The government has peddled this same myth for decades. The entire food pyramid is a giant manipulation designed to reward Big Agriculture. And “manipulation” is not a shock-term. If you’ve never heard of Luise Light, then you’re grossly misinformed about what the federal government is capable of when it comes to pulling wool over the eyes of the American people.
Anyone who thinks the research establishment won’t come to specific, pre-determined conclusions due to collusion between governments and industry probably doesn’t know that 97–99% of medical journal advertising profits come from pharmaceutical companies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Or that those who masquerade as “independent medical experts” aren’t so independent.
Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds. (s)
This is a significant challenge to overcome. Unsafe things can be made to seem safe if the right amount of money or power lands in the right hands. And if enough hands are involved, combined with hefty doses of fear and paranoia, a “consensus” can easily brew.
I’m not saying that’s happened, but you must acknowledge that it’s a challenge. All of a sudden, citing “research” isn’t all that valuable unless you’ve researched the researchers.
Have you?
This isn’t far off from the Global Warming debate, by the way. There’s a “consensus” (misuse) there also. And “deniers” are treated in much the same disrespectful way as Semmelweis…and those who don’t vaccinate.
But the evidence that the government, researchers, media, and practically everyone else with a fingerprint on anything Global Warming related has manipulated data continues to arrive from every crack and crevice.
The government, especially when in bed with Big Business, has a horrible track record of manipulation and cronyism in nearly every industry. It’s not a stretch to be cautious about these relationships when it comes to vaccines.
Lesson: Maybe we shouldn’t build “consensuses” on such shaky foundations?

Speaking of: Is it legitimate that the government passed a federal law prohibiting lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers?


It’s not a statement, just a question.
If you’re a vaccine advocate, it would help your case if vaccine manufacturers weren’t themselves immune from the repercussions of putting out a potentially dangerous product. Then you could at least make the argument, “Hey, if your kid dies or gets seriously injured, at least you’ll be rich.”
But it begs the question: why is the government in the business of protecting a “big bad corporation?”*
*If you supported that 99% movement a while back, hate Capitalism, or hate rich people, then you also should hate vaccine manufacturers and those who protect them, should you not?
The only way the market works is if the manufacturers of products that harm people can be litigated against.
When you give the government the power to make people immune from litigation, and that government is in bed with said people, it brings us back to point #4…this is a significant challenge to deal with when making the case for the widespread use of vaccines.
Is it ever legitimate for the government to remove the risk of litigation from a company? The answer, if you care at all about your own wellbeing, is no.

“You’re putting people at risk of death.”


I’m not going to make an argument about vaccine efficacy or the potential for unvaccinated people to put vaccinated people at risk (or vice versa). What I’m going to argue is that the “putting others at risk of death” argument defeats itself based on statistical significance.
Most of the hysteria and current vaccine debate is in regards to the current measles “outbreak,” so we’ll use that as an example.
The death rate among those infected is typically 0.2%, or close to equal that of your chances of dying in a car accident.
In other words, if you’re that concerned about people vaccinating to prevent death, you should be making an equally strong case that both of you have your driver’s licenses revoked.
Actually, it’s worse because you have a 0.2–0.5% chance of dying in a car and it’s almost certain that you actually drive a car. The 0.2% chance of death by measles requires that I (or my child) beat the ENORMOUS odds to even get measles in the first place.*
The same odds hold pretty steady for measles injury, except car injury wins out even more. And the chance of being killed or injured by the measles vaccine still surpasses the chance of being killed or injured by measles itself.
Again, I’m not arguing for or against vaccines, I’m arguing for sanity. If you believe that “you’re putting people at risk of death” is a valid argument, then the injury/death by vaccine argument is equally (actually it’s moreso) valid, is it not?
*This also covers the “not vaccinating your child is child abuse,” “is negligent,” and “should be criminalized” arguments.

“You need to vaccinate for the good of the herd. You’re putting us at risk!”


Putting the science about herd immunity aside, this argument is faulty because its premise is that I should alter my behavior for the good of the collective.
If that’s your belief, then at least own it in full…
I invite you to start MACB (Mothers Against Cesarean Birth) and SAIF (Society Against Infant Formula). Don’t forget to march against the current industrialized food supply (you don’t eat that stuff, do you?) and the government who subsidizes it.
This is a debate about immunity, is it not? If it is, then how can you not mandate vaginal birth and breast feeding until the age of two (minimum), the two primary components of the development of a healthy immune system—an immune system that can reduce the spread and severity of disease along with injury and death rates?
How can you support the current industrialized (and subsidized) food supply full of grains and sugars that are ravaging child and adult immune systems and leading to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of more people than the diseases you wish to vaccinate against?
If this is about herd immunity and doing whatever it takes for the good of the collective, then let’s start REALLY focusing on the immunity of the herd! Who cares if that mom is struggling to produce breast milk—she needs to woman-up and nix those bottles, does she not? Who cares if she’s at high risk for vaginal birth complications…this is about all of us, not just her!
See, I don’t particularly care what your position is…I just want you to fully support it.

“Vaccines aren’t natural, so I’m opposed to them.”


You can be against the use of vaccines, but this not a legitimate argument. It doesn’t require much discussion, it’s a textbook logical fallacy.
You can do better.

“Vaccines cause Autism or [X]”


I’ve never been a fan of blanket statements.
Kids get something like 49 doses of 16 different vaccines before the age of six. It’s obvious that there are known cases of side effects—including death—from vaccines.
The reason one child may have a bad reaction where another child doesn’t is still being (and should be) hotly debated.
With Autism specifically, there is a correlation between Autism rates and vaccine rates. But correlation does not equal causation.
The general statement that vaccines cause Autism is unacceptable. Is it a specific vaccine? Is it a combination of certain vaccines? Is it the full vaccine schedule? If it’s not a guarantee that Autism will occur (and it’s not a guarantee that vaccines are 100% safe), then what is the underlying trigger?
It’s not like vaccines don’t have legitimate safety concerns. If we were talking about water and someone claimed that water caused Autism when water is otherwise 100% safe for all people to consume, that would be absurd. But we’re talking about something that has known safety issues and reactions other than Autism, so it’s something that should be looked at more closely.
See, there’s a lot of things to sort out. While I can’t say for sure that the use of vaccines has never caused a case of Autism, I also can’t say that it has. I’m not sure anyone can confidently say yes or no on either side, can they?
So the charge that vaccines cause Autism is a bad argument. We don’t need more vitriol though, we need more data. There’s obviously an underlying issue that is triggering sometimes horrific reactions (I’m not saying Autism is a horrific reaction) in certain people. It would be best for all involved to work to identify that trigger.
It could be that vaccines don’t cause Autism, but do trigger a change in some people that make the conditions for Autism ripe. For example, there’s a lot of research coming out linking Autism to the gut biome. It’s no secret that 70%+ of the immune system is located in the gut. Could the alteration of glut flora in a certain way (via any trigger, not just vaccines) create the conditions for the development of Autism? Who knows? Do you know?
It’s easy to make blanket statements on either side. Finding the truth is a bit tougher. Perhaps we need to increase our mutual desire for data and decrease our rampant confidence?
In any case: it helps if everyone just stays sane.

Written by
Kevin Geary
Founder of RebootedBody.com & Host of the Rebooted Body Podcast. Blender of real-food nutrition, functional fitness, and behavior psychology. @rebootedbody
 
 

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

10 Facts About Our Society That We Oddly Accept As Normal

10 Facts About Our Society That We Oddly Accept As Normal

We prioritize money and the economy over basics like air, water, food quality, our environment and our communities.
We utilize an economic trading system that facilitates the death of millions of people each year.
We divide the worlds land into sections and then fight over who owns these sections.
We call some people “soldiers” which makes it OK for them to kill other people.
We torture and kill millions of animals everyday needlessly for food, clothing and experiments.
We send children to school for their entire childhood to memorize facts and skills that they will rarely use.
We impose financial pressures on parents, forcing them to miss out on vital stages of their child’s development.
We have thousands of religions, each one believing that their God or god-story is the only true and unique version.
Love and compassion, which promotes life, are mocked as facile. Whereas war, which harms life, is seen as honorable.
Anyone with a really useful invention, can forcefully prevent others from using or modifying it.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE:  http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/08/25/10-shocking-facts-about-society-that-we-absurdly-accept-as-normal/

Monday, 9 February 2015

Racism disguised as concern

Today I read something that really got me questioning, and although I had already realised that the main British media is totally corrupted, what I read today really shows the extend some groups are trying to create stereotypes and discrimination.

Under the disguised of concern for the Rotherham victims, The Times published an article by Melanie Phillips today Monday 09/02/2015.

According with Phillips, the issue is not that most of the men involved where from Pakistani origin, but because there were Muslim. Since when has all child abuse cases been connected with Pakistanis or Muslims? Is a certain member of the Royal family also a Muslim? Are the BBC, Parliament or pedophile Vatican priests also Muslims? And these are just a few that have recently also been on the news.

But Phillips goes on and on, with twisted words trying to use a serious issue for the purpose of creating discrimination, hate and segregation.

Many events labelled as "terrorist attacks by Muslims", like the attacks in France, have been faked. Many videos are being posted by non-Muslims to show what the main media is trying to hide from us. And many of these false flag events have more than one purpose.

Part of the event was to build up public acceptance that in the name of Freedom of Speech it is OK to have "journalists" publishing HATE MESSAGES and causing open discrimination against Muslims and the religion of Islam.

I am not one for religion and personally have issues with any group or authority figure that tries to impose something that does not resonate with me as being.

Many British people, like me, feel no need to accept a religion, but sadly they have replaced it with faith in the "news". Some people will accept anything they are told without questioning, that is true for religious extremism and brain-washed-newspaper-readers-extremists.

But as some still buy into the sheep heard mentality, many more are awaking up everyday.

As main media outlets keep desperately trying to persuade public opinion, their desperation is so clear it gets people questioning: Why are they trying so hard to demonize all followers of Islam?

I have no doubt that the timing the "authorities" decided to expose the issues in Rotherham where carefully planned, these "authorities" had another agenda and that is why no action was taken before. They waited for when it suited them to bring the issues to the public via the twisted lenses of the main media.

The article in question has done nothing to assist the victims in Rotherham or anywhere in the world. Blaming a religious group for one event that sadly happens around the world, a vile social issue that also includes the rich, the white, the Vatican and those of "royal blood" as the perpetrators.

Update:  06 March 2015

www.ipso.co.uk
The IPSO is suppose to: "handles complaints about breaches of the Editors' Code of Practice. We operate a new complaints procedure that is designed to achieve speedy and fair resolution of your complaints. We are able to impose new sanctions, including the ability to determine the nature, extent and placement of corrections, when they are necessary in order to remedy a breach of the Editors' Code." I submitted a complaint after reading the article mentioned above via their website and in my personal experience, the process seems to be designed to make it hard for me to have my complaint heard. Therefore I am posting the communications between myself and the IPSO staff here.

Get to know the IPSO: http://hackinginquiry.org/the-campaign/the-truth-about-ispo/

Email received 09/02/2015

Your complaint


Type of complaint: Behaviour of a journalist and/or photographer
Type of complaint: Material published in a newspaper or magazine
Date story was published: Monday 09 February, 2015
Publication: the times
URL of article (if appropriate):
Publication has been contacted?: No
Publication headline: we must say the unsayable about rotherham


How the Code has been breached

Clauses breached

Clause 12 (Discrimination) The article published by the times is offensive even to non Muslims like myself. It's discriminating against the religion of Islam and clearly suggests all Muslim man are potential sex abusers. 

Email received 10/02/2015
Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Your complaint is currently being assessed, and we will be in touch with you again shortly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Should IPSO decide that your complaint falls outside of our remit, or does not raise a possible breach of the Code, we will write to you to explain why and send a copy of our letter to the publication.
Alternatively, if we decide that the concerns you have raised fall within our remit and raise a possible breach of the Code, and you have not previously exhausted the publication’s internal complaints procedures, a copy of your complaint and any other correspondence you have sent to us, including contact information, will be sent to the publication to provide it with the opportunity to resolve the matter directly with you.
A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is administered by IPSO, can be found at https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html.
Please note, in addition, the following information about our confidentiality and data protection procedures:
Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation requires good faith on both sides.  In order for us to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation - most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party.  Publication, without consent, may affect our ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered when we reach a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during an investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint to us. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling.
Data protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided for the purposes of dealing with your complaint.  You also consent to the publication of any decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.
Further information about complaining to IPSO, including a summary of the complaints procedure, can be found at: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/makeacomplaint.html.
With best wishes,
and second email received 10/02/2015

I write further to our earlier email.
Before we proceed, I would be grateful if you could provide us with a copy of the article under complaint or, if it appears online, a link to the article.
We look forward to receiving this information, and would appreciate your response within the next seven days.
Best wishes
email received 19/02/2015
Further to our email of 10 February, we have yet to receive a response. We would be grateful to hear from you as soon as possible, so that we can proceed. 
If we have not received the information requested within the next seven days, we will close our file on this matter.
Best wishes
Reply 20/02/2015

Thank you for your email, but frankly I am disappointed that your organisation needs me to send a copy of the article otherwise no further action will be taken.
I did not keep a copy of the paper, but I expect that the people that are supposed to deal with complains about newspapers to be have access to UK newspapers. I provided the name of the article and date. Why would you not be able to have access to this information? You have not yet investigated my complaint because I did not sent a copy of the newspaper???
What is the point of that??? Who are you regulating??? Please advise what is the purpose of your organisation. I complaint about an article in The Times on the 09/02, I would have expected that your organisation would investigate it with immediately effect.
I trust that the IPSO do have access to all articles printed and published recently by The Times newspaper. I expect my complaint to be assessed within days of being reported.  
But then if you do decide that my complaint is valid, you will them send a copy to the Times so I can resolve the matter with them. I ask again, what is the purpose of the IPSO?
Please send me the details of how to complaint the service provided by IPSO. Please can you also send me further information who funds the IPSO and how are the investigations carried out the IPSO regulated.
Kind regards
Email received 23/02/2015

Thank you for your email of 20 February.
As I am sure you will appreciate IPSO receives a very large number of complaints about a variety of articles. As such, we require complainants to provide a copy or link to the article, and explain how they consider the Code of Practice to have been breached.
In this case, we have been able to find the following article; I would be grateful if you could confirm that this is the article about which you wish to complain.
IPSO is the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. It is funded by its members.
We look forward to receiving this information, and would be grateful for your response within the next seven days.
Best wishes
Reply 26/02/2015
Thank you for your reply. I can confirm that is the article in question. I look forward to hear from you shortly.
Regards,
Email received 26/02/2015

I write further to our earlier email.
We are currently in the process of assessing your complaint in full. IPSO is moving offices, and we would like to make you aware that there is a possibility of some delay during this period.
We will be in touch with you about your complaint in due course. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions or concerns.
Best wishes,
Email received 04/03/2015 - cc The Times
Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) regarding your complaint about an article headlined “We must say the unsayable about Rotherham”, published by The Times on 9 February 2015.

On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.

You held the view that the article discriminated against Muslims and that it suggested that all Muslim men are “potential sex abusers”, in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination). Clause 12 protects identified individuals against discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. Your complaint did not relate to an identified individual. As such, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 12.

Whilst we note your view that the article was offensive, the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not unjustifiably infringed.

You are entitled to request the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us within seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made more than seven days following the date of this email.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

Best wishes,
Reply 06/03/2015

Please accept this email as my request to have the Executive’s decision to be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee.
I have used your organisations website to place my initial complaint. Upon placing my complaint only a number of selections was offered to identified the reason for my complaint. There were not sufficient clauses and, at the time I selected the most fitting category in according with the message portrait in the paper in question.
I selected Clause 12 (Discrimination), and it is discrimination against all individuals followers of the Islamic fate. The way the description for clause 12 suggesting that identified individuals is actually in line with my complaint. It does not say identified individuals by name or only one individual, and all the individuals followers of Islam have been discriminated and identified by the article in question, specially the male followers of Islam. Please see below some of the articles lines and provide an clear explanation to why the IPSO does not agreed that all individuals Muslims have been identified in the article.
What is the clause for Religion discrimination? I don’t remember seeing that on the choices provided by your website because it should be there.
I am very disappointed at the time it took for my complaint to be reviewed under the excuse that I did not provide a copy of the paper. I also received emails suggesting that if I did not send the copy of the newspaper within so many days then my complaint would be dismissed. Again with your email below, you state that if I do not respond within the time set that this complaint will be dismissed. Yet you took your time dealing with my complaint while giving me a short time to reply or be dismissed without further opportunity to appeal.
It is very clear to me how the IPSO is working to protect the newspapers. Please also refer to the email I sent to your colleague on the 20/02/2015 on this matter.
As part of my request to have my complaint review, please provide a full explanation to the following;
Example 1 - identified men of Pakistani heritage:
Last summer’s Jay report found
that at least 1,400 children in
Rotherham, mainly white girls from
troubled backgrounds, were
enslaved, sexually attacked and
prostituted by gangs of
overwhelmingly Pakistani-heritage
men.
Example 2 – identified Muslim
both the Casey and Jay
reports themselves bow to political
correctness by failing to
acknowledge that the cultural factor
behind the Rotherham grooming
gangs is not that they are Pakistani
but Muslim
Example 3 – identified Muslim men as being attackers, does not say some Muslims, the language used suggest all Muslims men
It’s not Pakistani Christians,
Hindus or atheists who are involved
in these crimes. Nor is it just white
girls who are targeted: Sikhs have
been complaining for years that their
girls are attacked by Muslim men
Example 4 – identified Muslims, this statement is clearly being used to create discrimination
The
reason is that in Muslim society
women are treated as inferior people,
and non-Muslims are widely
regarded as trash.
Example 5 – identified Islam, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION plain and simple and therefore relates to all individual followers of Islam
The issue is
not minority ethnicity. It’s Islam,
the greatest PC unsayable of the lot

I want a detailed explanation to why the statements above will not be consider discrimination against all individuals of the Islamic fate.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Saturday, 7 February 2015

Vaccines and the main media

Yesterday in a UK newspaper "The Times" there was an article named "The US needs a vaccination against ignorance" by Justin Webb where he went on to say how scientifically and socially illiterate Americans are because more and more Americans are choosing not to vaccinate their children.

He then finished the article by saying that childhood vaccination does not get the proper hearing because more Americans are choosing to reply on other sources of news instead of seeing the "veracity" of the mainstream news.

That goes to show how we, anywhere in the world, do have to get ourselves informed, as the mainstream media has nothing to do with presenting info or news.

We should look to alternative sources of information where the interest is our health and well being instead of the propaganda and fear mongering opinions of a few that have their own agenda.

It all comes down to choice. You, as the amazing human being that you are, have the choice to look further into the information presented to you before making an informed decision.



I post about vaccinations, GMO food, natural childbirth and other alternative information I come across on my own research. Some friends and people online have claimed that I am against these and that instead I should believe "the Truth" that they so passionately protect as being fact because a figure of authority or a main media source have stated so.

Lets take the example of natural childbirth. I do not denied that for many women the medical establishment practices can mean the difference between life and death. It is of paramount importance to have medical assistance available to all women. But for many those approaches are not needed or can even be the cause of health issues. What is needed is choice. For each women to have available the information in regards to the risks and benefits, for you to be able to have a sincere conversation with your doctor and be able to trust his advice, and for your doctor to be respectful of your choices.

When it comes to GMO food many people will tell you how wonderful we are to have such technology. Its like the person feels some sense of pride towards claiming how wonderful it is. Maybe that can be beneficial uses of such technology but only if used with care, with the understanding that what we do can affect a very sensitive natural balance, that we may cause more harm to ourselves and the planet by using this technology with the only aim of making more money for the big corporations. We are looking for a quick fix and not taking into account the risks it will eventually create. And that not even taking into consideration that this same technology can be used against us, and it is being used against us by Monsanto. Some quickly label this as a conspiracy, many because its too painful to accept the truth.



Our governments are being lobbied into passing laws that do not benefit us. We are being used as collateral damage and potential sources of fear mongering propaganda, control, and most of all a source of income for the big corporations.

Vaccines is a topic so vast it took me a long time to fully understand how sinister its current uses are. They, Big Pharma, have no intention to help you and your family have a better life. And its not just because of the money involved in these practices, its about keeping people suffering.

Again its choice, just do a quick search and try to establish how likely are you to contract the diseases and how likely are you to suffer from the side effects. 

And for those dying children in Africa, the vaccine is not the cure for the cause of their deaths. The cause of the suffering goes back to European countries invading their land, taking their strong and taking their wealth, creating the social, political, financial and health crises that now face. Better nutrition, health and hygiene together with allowing their countries and cultures to develop as it should naturally, having the psychological and spiritual development that is natural for humans to thrive.  


Key points from A Guide to Health by Gandhi:
  • The nature of diseases like smallpox have been misconceived. While smallpox has a contagious component, vaccinated individuals can become infected, and non-vaccinated individuals remain immune, disproving Jenner's original theory that vaccination equates to bona fide immunity. 
  • Vaccination is a unsanitary practice. By injecting the 'filth' of a diseased cow and smallpox patient into the body of a healthy individual one inevitably makes them sicker, possibly producing new infections, ultimately resulting in a greater disease burden.
  • The route of administration of the vaccine -- injection--- harbors special dangers versus natural (oral) exposures to infection.
  • Fear of disease drives people to vaccinate against commonsense and rationality.
  • Vaccination is unethical and immoral because of the manner in which the vaccine is produced (through the great suffering of poisoned animals)
  • The income generated through vaccination is the driving reason why the medical profession does not wish to identify aforementioned problems in safety and efficacy.
  • Conscientious objectors should be willing to stand their ground with courage and face persecution and penalties.
  • Those objecting for medical reasons should aspire towards mastery of the subject such that they will be able to win others towards their perspective.
  • Sanitation, hygiene, fresh air, water, and clean food are essential for preventing infection and/or helping those infected to recover.
Read the full article here and link to download the book:
Gandhi's Anti-Vaccine Views
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gandhis-anti-vaccine-views-ring-true-century-laterA

Other articles to check out:
They want us dead - Depopulation plans exposed
http://worldtruth.tv/they-want-us-dead-eugenics-outlined/

On Facebook: Vaccination Information Network