Anti-vaccine lobby spreads more lies about Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Just over three weeks ago I came across an email sent to Australia’s premier anti-vaccination organisation, headed India kicks out Gates Foundation. The author offered a YouTube link and the observation “Some good news. Conflict of interest in vaccine policy & Gates ties with big pharma.”

I followed the link and ended up at The Corbett Report channel and an episode of New World Next Week, entitled India kicks out Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This exercise in conspiracy theory and misinformation was presented by James Corbett and James Evan Pilato – the latter of Media Monarchy. The channel blurb tells us that the gig, “covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news”. No, really.

During the introduction James Evan Pilato tells us, “Bill Gates gets the boot, we’ve got that story…”. When he finally gets to “that story” Pilato cherry picks enough material to tell a nodding Corbett that;

A lotta times it’s kinda like whack a mole with eugenics obsessed so-called elites like the Gates Foundation but we’ll take a good whack on ’em. James…?

How utterly charming.

Corbett thinks this is “exactly right” but is not sure this spells “the end of Gates’ immunisation plans”.

Sigh. Perhaps Corbett might have simply stated that he’d read what was being reported by Reuters, a day before Corbett Report was uploaded. Primarily, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have not been “kicked out” of India. Nor is it true, as the masters of feverish antivaccinationism at Vac Truth proclaimed, that “India holds Bill Gates accountable for his vaccine crimes”. And no, the Foundation has not been “found guilty of fraud” as another den of Internet rubbish contended.

This issue is about image, perceived “conflict of interest issues” and the influence of India-centric forces upon government. So who is involved and how does it line up?

India’s peak immunisation advisory body is the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI). This body was being serviced by the Immunisation Technical Support Unit (ITSU). The ITSU is funded by the BMGF. This funding arrangement has been in place for years. The ITSU monitors and strategises New Delhi’s immunisation programme which is estimated to reach 27 million infants per year.

Around 2000, the BMGF initially committed $750 million to the Vaccine Alliance (newly launched GAVI) and presently have donated over $1.5 billion. GAVI is partnered with large vaccine companies. A fact that is integral to GAVI’s funding and co-financing policies.

It is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backing of GAVI that leads to the apparent conflict of interest. But why is this a problem?

The Indian government’s decision comes after influence from senior medical officials and organisations such as Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM). SJM is firmly opposed to multinational corporations and operates under an India-centric philosophy. The argument raised time and again against the present immunisation funding arrangement is that it may shape vaccination policy and strategy.

In December 2015 an independent policy watchdog released a study advising caution against international philanthropy and BMGF for this very reason. Nonetheless India had already implemented a wide raft of restrictions on non-governmental organisations to ensure more effective decision making in major policy areas. In 2016 dozens of foreign-funded health experts working in public welfare were dismissed by order of the Indian government.

According to Reuters a spokeswoman for the ITSU recently said the grant ends this month, and;

We are in advanced stages of discussion with the ministry on the contours of the next phase of technical support.

The perception of a possible conflict of interest leading to vaccine policy influence means that the government, and not BMGF, will now fund a key ITSU unit responsible for assisting the NTAGI. A senior health ministry official Soumya Swaminathan said of the funding change that the government felt there was a need to completely manage it on its own. On February 8th she told Reuters;

There was a perception that an external agency is funding it, so there could be influence.

Reuters continued;

Swaminathan, however, stressed there were no instances of influence found and the decision was only in part prompted by a wider perception about foreign funding of the program.

The ITSU also runs units responsible for tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management. These will continue to be funded by BMGF.

Thus the tale of Gates being kicked out of India for fraud and “vaccine crimes” is slanderous fiction. Even the claim that his ties to pharmaceutical companies reveal a conflict of interest demanding banishment is in error. Merely the perception of a conflict of interest may exist. It has been argued that ties to the pharmaceutical industry may influence India’s vaccination strategy.

The reprehensible contention that Bill Gates or the BMGF are involved in eugenics or seek population control via genocide that’s inexplicably caused by vaccines, is a favourite revulsion spread by antivaccinationists, based upon one intentionally misrepresented statement from Bill Gates.

Other quotes from Gates reveal how far from reality this notion is;

The metric of success is lives saved, kids who aren’t crippled. Which is slightly different than units sold, profits achieved. But it’s all very measurable, and you can set ambitious goals and see how you do.

[…]

I’d be deeply disappointed, [if in the next 25 years he can’t lower the death toll by 80%. Otherwise,] we’re just not doing our job very well.

Melinda Gates has observed;

If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size.

Those against vaccines are of course against Gates. Misrepresenting the relationship between vaccine preventable disease and population growth is something antivaccinationists do purposefully, due to the internalisation of conspiracy theories or through an inability to understand evidence.

Two years before the BMGF was formed Gates and his wife funded a John Hopkins project to use computers to educate women in the developing world about contraception. Family planning has become a key focus of BMGF. Initially there was a basic equation involved.

Health = resources ÷ population.

A similar formula underscored his multibillion-dollar funding of education reform. With smaller class sizes teachers could devote more time to students, resulting in better educated and smarter children.

Success = teachers ÷ students.

Where vaccine preventable diseases ravage communities in developing countries parents face the probability their children will die or be disabled. If not, long periods of illness severely compromise the chances of completing a comprehensive education which may be followed with further study or employment. Faced with this harsh reality families will consequently be large, increasing the chances of children surviving to adulthood and being able to contribute to family and community life.

The availability of vaccines removes these hardships. Children have the opportunity to survive, remain healthy and grow to adulthood. More so they can do this with a basic education, a university education and far greater chances in the employment market. In this way families do not have to be as large and children can advance to a socioeconomic status greater than their parents. As Melinda Gates so succinctly put it, when parents know their children will live a healthy life, a reduction in population size is natural.

Other unjustified claims levelled by the anti-vaccine lobby against the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation relate to accusations of reckless HPV vaccine administration in India by the trial’s managers resulting in fatalities and illness. In short serious vaccine injury. BMGF had funded the $3.6 million HPV vaccine trial, which was halted following the deaths of seven girls involved. The trial’s managers were absolved by state investigations. The managers were the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in New Delhi.

As reported in Science;

Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral hemorrhage.

Government investigators concluded that the link between vaccination and pyrexia was “very unlikely” and between stroke and vaccine “unlikely”. However in 2010 a health ministry appointed panel concluded there were shortcomings and ethical lapses in the trial. In August 2013 an all-party parliamentary panel came down very harshly on PATH, and levelled an “astonishing allegation” accusing PATH of ignoring women’s health in the hope of convincing India to add HPV vaccination to it’s roster.

PATH released a statement which included;

…we strongly disagree with the findings, conclusions, and tone of the released report and its disregard of the evidence and facts.

Although the BMGF was not targetted by the panel for it’s role in funding, it said in a statement;

[That] the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India all have recommended vaccination “as a proven and highly effective preventive measure for cervical cancer.”

Read the Science article for a better understanding of this controversy.

One should not be surprised at this latest attempt to smear the name of BMGF given the history of antivaccinationists misrepresenting evidence. This piece from Skeptical Raptor covers “anti-vaccine hatred” levelled at Gates’ vaccination programmes in Africa. I’m not surprised to see Mike Adams of Natural News feature with a splendid pack of lies.

What we can be absolutely sure of at present is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has not been “kicked out of India”, for the imagined vaccine crimes and fraud that antivaccinationists would have unsuspecting readers believe. They still fund tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management at India’s ITSU. The ITSU will be partially funded by India’s health ministry. The changes are part of India’s larger clampdown on non-governmental organisations to allow control over policy decisions.

Whilst India ordered the dismissal of foreign-funded health experts last year the BMGF was not one. The so-called “Gates ties with Big Pharma” relate to vaccine policy design and are perceived only, due to the BMGF backing of GAVI. A senior health ministry official stressed there were no instances of policy design influence found.

And no. Bill Gates has not, does not and will not use vaccines for eugenics or as an instrument of global depopulation.

He has never proposed anything of the sort.

Fake News serves conspiracy theorists well

A recent article posted by Orac examined the fallacious story of FBI raids on the USA Centre for Disease Control.

What’s concerning here is that such stories aren’t just bogus claims or cherry picking from evidence or misrepresenting of reports and announcements from authoritative sources. Nope, these stories are utter nonsense with no basis at all in verifiable events.

They aim to advance malignant and anti-social agendas. In the case of the above lie that the FBI raided CDC offices, it’s clear purpose was to exploit the drooling anticipation of the anti-vaccination lobby. Mainly that with “vaccine/autism/tweeting” Trump having been inaugurated the evil masters behind mass poisoning-by-vaccine would get theirs.

A second very useful purpose is that very few people check the source of the material. Within 24 hours the fake news story may have been read by tens to hundreds of thousands. Even if the piece is refuted with evidence and thoroughly debunked, it is unlikely readers drawn to the key message will invest the time and intellectual discipline to ascertain a. the facts and b. how readers were deceived.

There’s an interesting article here examining Trump’s grab bag of lies.

Do read Orac’s piece. It focuses on the FBI/CDC issue nicely. Not only was this fake news story published but was followed up with further fake news boasting articles with headlines proclaiming “Confirmed”.

Fake news isn’t new to those dealing with anti-vaccination lies. The anti-vaccine lobby has been publishing deceitful articles and “announcements” for years.

It seems in the present climate it is likely we will see more fake news from a range of anti-science, far right wing, bigoted groups that are finding a damaging voice to Western democracy.

Del Bigtree misleads his audience over vaccine safety testing

In a second episode dealing with the Lies of Vaxxed published by More Truth © an old standard of the anti-vaccine lobby is subject to facts.

The lie Del Bigtree smothers his uncritical audience with is that, “there is not a safe vaccine out there” presumably because as he continues to lie, “there is not a decent safety study on any of the vaccines”.

Lies of Vaxxed: Episode 2 “Vaccine Safety Testing”

What we learn from the video above is that there are six main stages of vaccine development is the US. Including;

  • Exploratory
  • Pre-clinical
  • Clinical development
  • Regulatory review and approval
  • Manufacturing
  • Quality control

During the exploratory stage scientists focus on identifying an antigen that can prevent a specific disease. Without success during this process development goes nowhere. It cannot continue. Nonetheless, the exploratory stage takes years of diligent laboratory research.

When the exploratory stage yields viable results production continues into the pre-clinical stage. Here progress with tissue or cell-culture preparation involves animal testing. This aspect of the pre-clinical stage will assess the safety, or lack thereof, of any potential vaccine. Another aspect of the pre-clinical stage is assessing the ability of the potential vaccine to stimulate an immune response.

Despite the cost and time invested by this point, the majority of potential vaccines do not satisfy the rigour of the pre-clinical stage. In these cases again development cannot continue.

The diligence of the clinical stage can be seen as a three part process.

  • In the quest to ascertain safety, trial vaccines are tested on a small sample of healthy adults.
  • Vaccines are tested on a sample of several hundred adults.
  • Finally the clinical stage involves testing the vaccine on tens of thousands.

With vaccines being developed for children the clinical stage process continues. The age of test subjects is lowered incrementally until the target age is safely reached.

The final stages of clinical development include randomised and double blind trials. The potential vaccine is tested against a placebo. It takes from six to ten years to complete these safety tests. Whilst medications in the USA are subject to the same intense testing it’s worth noting that sample populations are three times smaller than for vaccine studies.

There are six more stages overseen by the FDA for regulatory review and approval of vaccines. This involves safety inspection of manufacturing facilities by the FDA and even more testing.

Safety monitoring, including phase IV trials, continues indefinitely once a vaccine has been approved. In the USA there is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink – a nationwide set of linked databases.

I certainly recommend watching this video because it is clear that safety is the primary element in vaccine manufacture. Claims to the contrary by Del Bigtree and the Vaxxed cronies are demonstrable lies. Under present manufacturing guidelines and restrictions most potential vaccines do not reach clinical development. As is clear in this video the reason is safety.

Professional anti-vaccinationists like Bigtree, or any who promote Vaxxed in order to consciously profit from their manufactured controversy, are a malignant force in public health. As such they deserve our derision.

 

♣ Despite this reality, in Australia the self appointed “vaccine experts” from the anti-vaccine lobby such as Meryl Dorey, Judy Wilyman and Tasha David insist no randomised double blind trials or testing against placebo has ever been carried out.

♥ Australians may likely remember from 2010, a significant number of AEFI. Febrile seizures in children aged 6-59 months following administration of CSL’s Trivalent Influenza Vaccine. One chid was ultimately compensated. This event resulted in the FDA inspecting CSL laboratories and outlining five “objectionable conditions”. Australia’s TGA reported at length on the event, the FDA inspection and the process of TGA inspection of CSL manufacturing facilities.

Whilst this was an unwanted, unfortunate event, it is also an example of safety and quality control procedures being firmly implemented.

 

Del Bigtree misleads his audience over safety of influenza vaccinations

An excellent video published by More Truth © provides a firm evidence based rebuttal to the blatant lies being peddled by Del Bigtree in his promotion of fraudulent anti-vaccine film Vaxxed.

A quick summary of main points raised in this production follows beneath the video.

Lies of Vaxxed: Episode 1 “The Flu Shot”

—————————–

  • The first lie from Del Bigtree is that “mercury” is still in influenza vaccines. “So let’s not kid ourselves”.

Actually the silvery metallic liquid that appears alongside huge needles in images antivaccinationists use to mislead, is elemental mercury. This has never been used in vaccines. The preservative thimerosal is used in multi-dose vials of influenza vaccine only. It is vital multi-dose containers are protected from bacterial infection and thimerosal ensures this.

Once in the body this compound breaks down into 49% ethylmercury which is expelled within approximately one week. A large number of studies confirm its safety for use in childhood vaccines. The mercury in seafood that we consume – methylmercury – is bio-accumulative and a recognised neurotoxin. This is why guidelines exist to ensure safe levels of methylmercury are consumed via seafood.

Of course the anti-vaccine lobby lie just as Bigtree does. Some even counter, bizarrely, that they do not inject fish. Or that ethylmercury is still a form of mercury and crosses the blood brain barrier. Firstly it does not enter the brain. Secondly if one is going to argue ethylmercury is “still mercury” they should apply that flawed logic to table salt; sodium chloride. In that light table salt is “still a form of chlorine”, which is inaccurate.

Thimerosal isn’t used in single shot vials. Finally, to be sure, one can simply ask for an influenza vaccine without thimerosal. There’s more information available here, and also here. So let’s no kid ourselves.

  • Next Del misleads his audience by claiming the influenza vaccine is being given to pregnant women, “and if you read the vaccine insert it’s never been tested on pregnant women”.

There are numerous studies confirming the safety of the influenza vaccine for both mother and fetus. As is clear in the above video this is true for “VAERS reports of pregnant women after the administration of TIV or LAIV”. TIV: Trivalent influenza vaccine. LAIV: Live attenuated influenza vaccine. Also there are significant problems in assuming the content of package inserts is equal to the conclusions of clinical research. Only the latter can be considered evidence.

  • Del continues with, “We now know women are probably miscarrying because of these vaccines, so that’s really horrific”.

Quoting from the video, “There are no studies that show the influenza vaccine can cause miscarriages or stillbirths. An independent study has actually shown that the flu shot can decrease the risk of a miscarriage or stillbirth”. A screenshot [3min 20] from the New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 24 2013 follows showing an abstract summary of Risk of Fetal Death After Pandemic Influenza Virus Infection of Vaccination. Conclusion as follows:

vaxxed_lies

There are a number of benefits for newborns associated with administering influenza vaccines to pregnant women. Between 2004-2012, 43% of children who died from influenza were healthy with no underlying conditions.

I recommend watching the video which includes evidence of a large number of studies that firmly refute the claims made by Bigtree.

AVSN president Tasha David misleads ‘We Are Vaxxed’ audience

Current president of the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network, Tasha David, visited Atlanta Georgia in the USA to attend the so-called “CDC Truth rally”.

This caper was a big deal for antivaccinationists obsessed with the dishonest, deceptive film Vaxxed. In forming a view about the push to promote Vaxxed and the individuals involved it is important to understand how utterly false and potentially harmful it is. Like most outspoken antivaccinationists Tasha David keeps reminding us of her own dishonesty.

Whilst in the US, on the weekend of October 15-16, David joined the parade of vaccine victims appearing as video subjects for We Are Vaxxed. Although dishonest throughout her stint it is the first lies she offers that are so patently absurd. Initially David offers:

The government made us change our own name because we’re not allowed to choose our own name in Australia, so that’s basically one of the reasons why we’re here because in Australia we don’t have a Bill of rights we don’t have guaranteed freedom of speech, so we’re not allowed to speak on a lot of things.

Freedom of speech? Bill of Rights? Not allowed to choose our own name in Australia? Oh my. The government had “made us change our own name”? Balderdash and Blubberblurt. The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network are obsessed with manipulating discourse and social media to keep their prior name – the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) – alive.

The AVN was formed in 1994. Twenty years later Tasha David became president. Clearly the AVN had a long run with the name they had chosen. It was however a confusing name and always intended to deceive. Regrettably the official sounding name was successful in fooling members of the public, and a legitimate midwifery organisation listed the AVN as reputable. The NSW Department of Fair Trading received complaints to this effect.

In December 2012 they ordered the AVN to change its name within two months or be deregistered. Minister for Fair Trading at the time, Anthony Roberts, said the group’s name “is confusing and has misled the public as to its operational intention”. The order was a huge blow to the twisted morale of the group which thrived on whenever possible snubbing regulators and mocking the vital purpose of regulation. They unsuccessfully challenged the order and by March 2014 changed their name to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network.

By the time of the name change the Fair Trading Minister was Stuart Ayers. The ABC reported:

Fair Trading Minister Stuart Ayres says the association’s original name was misleading.

“The title wasn’t reflecting their strong anti-vaccination stance and so we after receiving numerous complaints requested them to change their name,” he said.

“They’ve now complied with that request and the new title reflects their anti-vaccination stance.”

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says it hopes the name change makes sure the organisation is not mistaken for a government agency.

It would appear that David’s intellectually contorted statement suggesting government strong arm tactics and suppression of free speech is a calculated lie crafted to gain sympathy. In reality it is the health of Australian democracy and Fair Trading legislation that led to the order to change their deceptive name.

  • Listen to the first 2 min of David’s interview. NB: I edited out the confusion around live video streaming but have not altered the commentary in any way.

Tasha David continues:

I see that you guys are up in arms about that new CDC um, rule we’ve been talking about – forced vaccinating um, children, or people basically in the US. But I’m really sad to say that they’ve already passed that law in Australia. It’s called the Biosecurity Act 2015 so basically, um, they can force vaccinate you if you have a disease or um, some kind of illness that is a risk to human health.

Now that could be anything. Could be a cold you know, so we’ve already got the legislation in place. I haven’t seen it be used yet but the fact that it’s even in place is scary to me, you know, so…

Here, David is contending that forced vaccination is a reality in Australia if circumstances meet conditions outlined in the Biosecurity Act 2015. She further contends that the Act permits forced vaccination of an individual suffering “some kind of illness that is a risk to human health… that could be anything… could be a cold”. Putting aside David’s alarming lack of understanding the role of vaccination we should look closer at the Biosecurity Act 2015.

The Act is headed, An Act relating to diseases and pests that may cause harm to human, animal or plant health or the environment, and for related purposes.

The HTML version I’ve linked to has 681 pages, including endnotes. The word “vaccination” appears eleven times, the majority of these being in subsections or related sections. That is to say this vast document does not present a number of novel reasons for vaccination. Rather parts of the Act describe when vaccination is relevant to interpretation and application of the Act.

David is in error when claiming the Biosecurity Act 2015 deals with “anything” or “a cold”. The diseases this Act is designed to manage are in fact far removed from such a dismissive notion. Chapter 2 – Managing biosecurity risks: human health includes Listing Human Diseases:

(1)  The Director of Human Biosecurity may, in writing, determine that a human disease is a listed human disease if the Director considers that the disease may:
(a)  be communicable; and
(b)  cause significant harm to human health.
(2)  Before making a determination under this section, the Director of Human Biosecurity must consult with:
(a)  the chief health officer (however described) for each State and Territory; and
(b)  the Director of Biosecurity.
(3)  A determination made under this section is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the instrument.

With regard to Human Biosecurity Control Orders it should be noted that these are not applied frivolously and when an individual objects to the application of such measures the Director of Human Biosecurity “must take into account any factors that may affect the health of the individual”. Thus an established risk to an individual of an adverse reaction from vaccination would prevent administration of a vaccine.

With respect to imposing biosecurity measures the Act includes, in Chapter 2:

[Protections] aim to ensure that a power is exercised, or biosecurity measure imposed, only when circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify it, and only if it would be effective, it is appropriate and adapted for its purpose, and it is no more restrictive or intrusive than is required. [Protection] also ensures that the requirements of this Chapter do not interfere with an individual’s urgent or life‑threatening medical needs.

It’s important to realise with respect to disease a great deal of this Act and the application of biosecurity measures involve individuals entering Australian territory and the operation of aircraft or vessels entering or leaving Australia. Managing risks to human health include human biosecurity control orders. Section 59 of the Act includes:

A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual may require the individual to comply with certain biosecurity measures. [Those measures] include vaccination, restricting the individual’s behaviour and ordering the individual to remain isolated.

In Division 2 of the Act it states under Entry Requirements (bold mine):

The Health Minister may determine one or more requirements for individuals who are entering Australian territory at a landing place or port.

for an individual to provide either:
(i)  a declaration as to whether the individual has received a specified vaccination or other prophylaxis within a specified previous period; or
(ii)  evidence that the individual has received a specified vaccination or other prophylaxis within a specified previous period

With respect to vaccination identical requirements exist under Exit Requirements.

Unvaccinated Australians are freely travelling to and from the country without being vaccinated against potential disease. Despite the Biosecurity Act travellers have brought measles to Australia, resulting in a sixteen year diagnostic high in 2014. Tasha David may claim that under this Act a simple cold could lead to forced vaccination, but there was no evidence of Human Biosecurity Control Orders in the wake of a recent measles outbreak in Melbourne. David would benefit from understanding just why she hasn’t seen this Act used to force vaccination for trivial reasons.

Section 74 of the Act notes when an individual is expected to comply with a biosecurity measure. Subsection (2) reads:

The individual is required to comply with the measure only if:
(a)  the individual consents to the measure; or
(b)  the Director of Human Biosecurity has given a direction for the individual to comply with the measure…

Section 92: Receiving a vaccination or treatment:

An individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to receive, at a specified medical facility:
(a)  a specified vaccination; or
(b)  a specified form of treatment;
in order to manage the listed human disease specified in the order, and any other listed human disease.

With respect to the use of force one notes Section 95: No use of force to require compliance with certain biosecurity measures:

Force must not be used against an individual to require the individual to comply with a biosecurity measure imposed under any of sections 85 to 93.

Note: Force may be used in preventing an individual leaving Australian territory in contravention of a traveller movement measure (see section 101) or in detaining a person who fails to comply with an isolation measure (see section 104).

Thus contrary to Tasha David’s claim that, “they can force vaccinate you” under implementation of the Biosecurity Act 2015, we can see in this case that the Act itself prevents forced vaccination. It’s clear that no force can be used for the imposition of biosecurity measures under Sections 85 to 93. Vaccination, being Section 92, falls within this range.

No doubt antivaccinationists will disagree with any legislation that involves vaccination to protect the public from serious disease. What is important however is to underscore how this group will continually mislead the public without compunction. The Biosecurity Act 2015 is not used for just “anything” or simple “colds”. Nor does it permit forced vaccination.

David continues with considerable more nonsense. Offensive, crude dishonesty. Her next target is No Jab No Pay but it is the impact she claims to have observed that is quite sickening.

So these people that are single parents that don’t have that money to pay, you know that need that money just to survive… they can’t work, they can’t afford child care. So they’re basically on the street. We have so many stories on our web site of people living in cars, that are having abortions because they can’t afford to have a child in Australia now because of these laws.

Typically there is no evidence for these claims. If they were true the right thing for Tasha David to do would be to advise these individuals to have their children vaccinated and thus be eligible for the payments in question. Or perhaps the AVSN could help with some of that donated cash instead of spending it on trips to the USA.

Either way I doubt the AVSN will change their deceptive habits.