Whilst we can blame the impact of the global anti-vaccination movement, an increase in vaccine hesitancy that arose and has persisted during and since the COVID-19 pandemic, and even some RFK Jr. flotsam misleading the gullible, when it comes to measles, Australia and Australians must be especially vigilant in managing the risk of infection overseas.
I’m not a doctor nor hold any position allowing me to claim I can advise you, beyond what I read, on any infectious disease. Indeed I would recommend speaking first with a qualified doctor about the topic. Measles is highly contagious and spread via respiratory droplets (aerosols). Non-specific symptoms such as fever, rash, nasal discharge and cough are common. Nonetheless measles has a reasonably high rate of complication leading to hospitalisation or death.
The role of measles infection in causing immune amnesia | 2 | is remarkably disconcerting. I’d urge any reader to invest even modest time to understand this phenomena, and ensure oneself and loved ones are immunised against this virus. Remember, there is no cure. Quaint stories from anti-vaxxers of them all having it as a child and growing up with no ill effects are possible only because they refer to pre-vaccine years and choose to forget the friends who never returned to school, became blind or sustained brain damage.
Today (31st March 2026) saw the Australian Centre for Disease Control (ACDC) publish a firm reminder that if you’re travelling OS, adding a measles jab to your pre-travel preparations is more than wise. Even if you’re sure you have been vaccinated in the past, if you can’t confirm this with records, consider yourself un- or under- vaccinated. Adolescents or adults born during or after 1966 are recommended to receive two measles containing vaccines at least 4 weeks apart [Source]. It’s also quite safe and more than sensible to top up your MMR, particularly if you’re an adult, and decades have elapsed since your initial MMR. First let’s consider this sub-heading from ACDC News.
A new report confirms that almost all cases of measles in Australia are either acquired overseas or related to an overseas acquired case – especially around school holidays. Don’t bring measles home from holidays – add vaccination to your travel plan.
3D illustration showing virus particles interacting with cells
In fact the report | PDF | scrutinising the decade to 2024, reveals the years of highest infection were 2014 (339) and 2019 (284). There were 1,095 cases of infection reported during that decade. Almost all cases had either been acquired overseas or from someone who had brought measles back to Australia from overseas, states the ACDC news piece.
Further breakdown of figures tell us that when it comes to vaccination status, that 47% were unvaccinated, 30% had an unknown vaccination status, whilst 14% were under-vaccinated (being one dose). This final figure reinforces the importance of completing a vaccine schedule as well as confirming the impact of even insufficient antigen stimulus delivered via vaccine. The smallest number of infections were seen in subjects who had received only one of the two required measles shots. Measles infection was most common in those who had travelled OS – particularly to countries where measles was common. 57% of total notifications were in people aged 20 to 49 years.
2025 and 2026 data confirm a striking increase in measles infection. The total for 2025 was 181 cases. Currently we’re 25% of the way through 2026 with data showing 85 cases. This puts us on track for a 2026 total of 340 measles cases. The report also noted the drop in childhood measles vaccination from 94% in 2020 to 91% in 2024. Rather than look at this as a drop of only 3%, we must remain aware that measles herd immunity is impacted negatively when immunisation drops below 95%. So in reality, the reduction in immunisation has been steadily placing us all at greater risk since 2020.
Indeed certain groups are at higher risk of harm from insufficient herd immunity, including:
The immunocompromised
Those unable to be vaccinated for short or long term
Children too young to be vaccinated
The pregnant
Clearly, it’s important to plan some weeks ahead of travel as the two MMR (or measles) shots need to be given at least four weeks apart. Even if urgency applies, a gap of two weeks is insufficient to promote an adequate immune response. If an infant under 12 months needs to be considered for OS travel and/or an MMR course please see a paediatrician or your General Practitioner. On that topic, this NCIRS FAQ page is an excellent resource. It includes:
Infants travelling overseas can receive an early dose of measles-containing vaccine from 6 months of age, following an individual risk assessment, in addition to the routine doses given from 12 months of age.
Global outbreaks have been on the rise for some time. Australia has been keeping pace as best it can. Each state and of course the country as a whole is seeking to promote vaccine uptake and keep a close eye on the impact of outbreaks. There is only one solution and that is an increase in immunisation across the nation.
References below are from different states, news items and excellent US herd immunity/outbreak simulators.
Back on 7 December, The Skeptic Zone and Why Smart Women podcasts blended to present a unique live episode at The Occidental Hotel in Sydney. Billed as the Why Smart Women Zone Podcast the show featured Why Smart Women host Annie McCubbin with Sue Ieraci, Kate Thomas, Jessica Singer and Richard Saunders. Lara Benham was the MC. Video of the event is available here.
Question-time revealed irony, as the first questioner could benefit from subscribing to Annie’s Why Smart Women podcast. An anti-vaxxer, she seemed to have a plan to accuse, mock, embarrass or verbally pummel skeptics (those who pursue evidence and the scientific method in reaching conclusions), for not actually being “sceptical” (those choosing doubt, cynicism or evidence denial for the sake of it). Where one genuinely believes medical research is flawed, harm has been ignored or “they” stand to benefit, the latter is not uncommon. You can catch that “question” at the end of the video here (although the person is off camera) or listen to the audio embedded below:
In fact thirteen years ago I wrote Skepgoating: why anti vaxxers need to devalue skepticism. The notion of belittling skeptics this way, peaked for a time with all the lethality of wet cabbage. Ordered to change their misleading name, in February 2014 the Australian Vaccination Network initially chose the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, before swapping “skeptics” for “risks”. Occasional tirades of what “real sceptics” should be were rare until COVID-19 had its inevitable effect on the spread of misinformation. Failure to grasp the history of mRNA technology and research, blended with the failure to appreciate the volume of money and talent devoted to combat a dangerous global pandemic.
In 2021 Vaxxed producer and CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network, US anti-vax profiteer Del Bigtree boasted that for the vaccine disinformation machine, the pandemic was “a dream come true”. He was right. That lingering confusion was massaged and still remains. I’m not just assuming the antivax attendee at the Occidental believes unverified doubt, cynicism or evidence denial is the correct mindset. When pushed for her question, she loudly confessed:
Why are you so self-satisfied?
Why do you call other people “cookers”?
Why do you de-platform people? This is not science.
You are a shame on skepticism.
You’re not real skeptics!
I won’t be called a “cooker” by people like you.
You’re a bloody disgrace to skepticism.
Did you ever read RFK’s book?
She actually opened her tirade, seeming to be outraged that skeptics supported the evolving critical approach in mainstream media. When pressed, her question was basically, “In future are you going to continue to crush out the other side and never examine your assumptions? Did you ever examine your assumptions? Did you ever read RFK’s book?”. (Citing RFK evoked laughter and applause). Nonetheless, this was more accusation than question and her queries demonstrated absolutely no understanding of skepticism. She also accused the panel of being “self satisfied” that media outlets had suppressed disinformation, and alleged people had been injured and died because of such “silencing”, by the media.
Of course, here again I must stress of the 14 deaths causally linked to COVID-19 vaccines in Australia only one is linked to the mRNA vaccine. The rest are related to Astra Zeneca. The evidence is not on her side. Period. Perhaps nothing confirmed this greater than her demand, “Did you ever read RFK’s book?”. Titled The Real Anthony Fauci the book champions conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, promotes HIV/AIDS denialism and contends Fauci abused power for 30 years. Science Based Medicine labelled it a “conspiracy theory extravaganza”. Little wonder then, that our questioner seemed to argue that real science involved, not facts, experiments or scientific consensus, but questioning of assumptions, and basing evidence on opinions.
There are a number of specific claims in the tirade one needs to address and I’d like to do so, away from the noise of her Gish gallop. This woman claimed to once work for the Daily Mail and wrongly claimed an editor had urged reporters to make anti-vaxxers “sound crazy”, and that this was caught on video. A leaked video has been uncovered on the data-mining disinformation site, Natural News, which is really all one need know about whether the editor did the right thing. This was July 2021 when the vaccines were indeed saving lives and badly needed. Antivax rhetoric was then dangerous conspiratorial nonsense, pushed by trolls filling comment sections of news publications.
The woman said she herself also once thought anti-vaxxers were “crazy”. In fact, in the video the editor described them as “intelligent, otherwise well-educated people”. He added, “If we’re doing something that’s airing anti-vax views make sure that we’re also dismissing them… (‘is that the right way to put it?’ he asks someone off camera)… make sure we’re rubbishing their ridiculous claims”. I completely condone his advice. He criticises the anti-vax claims but not the person making those claims. He never suggested a journalist should make anyone “sound crazy”.
More so as an aside, on 19 December 2011, myself and reasonablehank had seperate complaints upheld against the ABC by ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs, for allowing Meryl Dorey to twice mislead radio audiences about the pertussis vaccine. Suffice it to say there are consequences for not educating your journalists about anti-vaccine disinformation. This editor clearly did the right thing.
She then challenges the panel about not questioning their “own assumptions”. This is absurd, as to a person, the panelists base their conclusions on research and evidence. Assumptions are not entered into. In the same breath she claims such assumptions led to injuries and deaths due to “mRNA and DNA genetic-based vaccines”. This last bit is a word salad that suggests she’s recently been reading up on the false claims that mRNA vaccines are polluted with residual DNA. On the other hand actual gene-based vaccines deliver instructions into the cell to promote synthesis of antigens. I looked at related myths such as “turbo cancer” caused by mRNA vaccines polluted with DNA residue in this post, last March.
Shortly after, she calls mRNA COVID-19 vaccines “repurposed genetic therapies”. Such therapies do target disease conditions caused by problems in human DNA. Think cystic fibrosis, haemophilia. Distorting this therapy is popular in anti-vax circles and is a refinement of the initial myth that mRNA vaccines enter the cell nucleus and damage DNA: itself an example of outright evidence denial. A comprehensive statement from the Australian Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) published on 26 June 2024. Former Senator Gerard Rennick led many disinformation campaigns on the topic, leading to the OGTR publishing the unambiguously titled, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not gene therapies below:
Of course we also heard that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine “was tested for 2.5 months and is a medical product like any other”. Just as mRNA vaccines are not “repurposed” in the derogatory sense this woman intended, mRNA technology for vaccines actually began in the 1970s. Mice were jabbed with mRNA influenza vaccines in the 1990s and humans took part in mRNA rabies studies in 2013. As nanotechnology developed, the idea of using lipid nanoparticles to carry mRNA and its vital information into cells, was researched, developed and eventually used with an Ebola vaccine on guinea pigs in 2017. Here, Return on Investment had an impact on development, as Ebola affects only a few African countries and yields minimal cases in the USA. Then COVID hit and changed the commercial reality for mRNA vaccines. I recommend this page from John Hopkins to learn more about mRNA vaccine development.
Whilst it may sound catchy to refer to “2.5 months” as an insufficient timeframe to develop a vaccine, this ignores that vaccine development takes time, money and research. When the COVID pandemic hit, global investment was enormous and nations worked in partnership, pulling knowledge and experts together as never before. The genetic sequence of COVID-19 was discovered and within two months human testing began under extremely strict regulation, increasing the time for approval. Emergency authorisation required a minimum of 2 months follow up data. Development further demanded that subjects were monitored for 2.5 months after the second dose. Then came Phase III trials, involving “tens of thousands” of subjects and it is these trials that focus on safety and efficacy. In Australia, the TGA were doubly pedantic when it came to checking the trial data it was presented with. So no. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine did not take 2.5 months to develop, but rather decades of research topped off with a global effort. Safety monitoring continues today.
Moving on, let me assure you medical products are all vastly different, and not as the woman alleged at one point “like a car or a bus”. Indeed Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have a rigid risk-based assessment and rating system for regulated medical products (therapeutic goods), focusing on potential for harm. More so, is a vaccine like a pain killer or is a pain killer like a pace maker (a medical device), or the pace maker like a bilary shunt and is that shunt a product like a titanium hip and the hip like a chemotherapy drug, a vasodilator or an external fixateur? The terms “product” and “medical product” are poles apart.
In that the vaccine did what it was supposed to do within the predicted risk-benefit ratio, even including unforeseen side effects, it is an effective medical product, still saving lives. Clearly, her use of “product” (and “car” and “bus”) was attempting to disparage mRNA vaccines, but in my mind this didn’t advance her argument. Rather it underscored her ignorance and reflects the pitfalls of “doing your own research”. More ignorance was highlighted by her bias in accusing skeptics of being “the magical thinkers”, suggesting skeptics think “nothing can be wrong with [the mRNA vaccine] because it’s got the magical word vaccine.”
At one point the woman promoted emeritus professor Robert Clancy, referring to his book on the subject. In fact he was the primary editor and contributor. Other contributors are anti-vaxxers Maryanne Demasai and John Campbell. Demasai’s work has long attracted criticism, including her 2016 suspension following an internal review into Catalyst at ABC. More recently she targets mRNA vaccines linking them to the myth of “turbo cancer”. Clancy earned himself ample criticism during the pandemic for promoting hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. He was championed by Craig Kelly and targeted mRNA vaccines as “genetic treatment”. Newcastle University distanced itself from Clancy, and the vice-chancellor stressed Clancy was not “a subject matter expert on COVID-19”.
The woman’s appeal to authority was embellished when she boasted she had walked up Machu Picchu with Richard Dawkins. Yet there’s no evidence Dawkins ever made such a trek. I can’t reject her claim that she “corresponded with Rob T. Carroll of The Skeptics Dictionary in the 90s”. Rather, these events don’t constitute evidence for her argument. Or even, as she contended, protect her from being labelled a “cooker”.
Finally, and most offensively, was the accusation “[Skeptics] are the reason my neighbour’s kid can’t play sport because he’s got a damaged heart. Your attitude got into the newsrooms and we dismissed everything…”. As Richard Saunders later notes on the podcast, skeptics have no such influence over mainstream media. Yet the assumption by the anti-vaccine pressure groups that conspiracies are being suppressed by those who seek evidence, is their go-to blame tactic. This warped thinking is what maintains conspiracy theories. The reality is that myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is consistently rated as far more likely and severe than from the vaccine.
So finally, finally, we may conclude with an answer as to why this woman felt she was being referred to as a cooker. They have worked very hard to become such, and cooker conduct was on loud display during the above tirade.
Those of you lucky enough to attend Skepticon in Melbourne early last month will remember Dave Farina presenting his talk The Birth of the Science Communicator, from the USA.
He recently joined up with Dr. Dan Wilson of Debunk The Funk to take on two full time anti-vaccine grifters, Steve Kirsch and Pierre Kory. You can check out Dave’s take on how things went by dropping in on his video explanation here. Regrettably the debate turned out a predictable mess as the audience was loaded with anti-vax trolls and the conduct of the notably loathsome Kory and Kirby, meant the full schedule of discussion points wasn’t even met.
This would be because Kory, who in August last year, lost his medical licence for promoting, and wildly profiting from pushing ivermectin during COVID, spat the dummy and walked out. Aw Gosh. Anyway, there’s Gish-galloping from the anti-vax chaps and heckling from their supporters. Dave and Dan do an excellent job handling the horrific misinformation that we’re now seeing in our post COVID-19 pandemic world. I’m not surprised things went astray, as I learnt in Australia that anti-vaxxers deserve not a molecule of oxygen.
Still, perhaps given the state of anti-science rhetoric and the steady rumble of runaway grift trains, then documenting their demonstrably deceptive tactics is a pursuit with rewards we’re yet to fully appreciate. This is an almost two hour gig which is perfect for either bingeing or letting play whilst you do the housework or head out for a walk.
You can watch the same event without Dave’s commentary, at The greatest vaccine debate in historyhere at Pangburn. Apologies that neither video appears to permit embedding.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is aware of misinformation in recent media and online reports that claim the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of DNA. This is not the case.
So opens the TGA report Addressing misinformation about excessive DNA in the mRNA vaccines. It is, for those of us aware of this issue, an understatement. The sheer volume and scope of misinformation, combined with relentless pressure from repeat offenders including members of the Australian parliament, more accurately suggests a campaign. A calculated campaign of misinformation designed to spread fear and intimidate the vaccine hesitant. Despite there being accepted means for discerning DNA residue in vaccines, two claims persist. Namely levels are hundreds of times greater than the accepted safe level, and that aggressive cancers will, and do, directly result.
Background
The original claim stems from a preprint paper by Kevin McKernan dated 11 April 2023. Amplitude, via the Australian anti-COVID vaccine lobby, was lent to this claim in July 2023. The legal guru behind all Australian court cases to challenge approval of COVID-19 vaccines, retired barrister Julian Gillespie, penned The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine. Falsely labelled “peer reviewed” by his anti-vaccine compatriots, it was published in the unabashedly anti-vaccine International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Gillespie also crafted the case material used by Dr. Julian Fidge, in what became known as the Fidge v Pfizer case in which Fidge was represented by Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates. I summarised the unsuccessful case here, in April this year. Gillespie and Co. followed with a conspiratorial constitutional complaint against the presiding judge, Justice Helen Rofe. Then via a High Court writ they targeted Chief Justice Debra Mortimer for not accepting their complaint. Both complaints were lodged on behalf of Dr. Fidge
Around the same time, the outrage manufactured by the anti-vax lobby shifted from the claim in Fidge v Pfizer that mRNA vaccines were Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to the claim that vast amounts of DNA were contaminating these vaccines. Julian Gillespie, who wants a COVID Royal Commission, publishes for his “good substack folk” regularly on DNA contamination. He claims to have commissioned Canadian molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher to pursue said contamination, ultimately announcing confirmation on 6 June. Speicher was not a surprise choice for Gillespie. He had published with McKernan, Jessica Rose, Maria Gutschi, and David Wiseman in Canada in October 2023, reaching the contamination conclusions Gillespie wants to hear about.
It bears stressing that Kevin McKernan’s preprints lost credibility long ago, when it became apparent the vials he tested were of unknown origin. More so, if origin is unknown then cold chain transport requirements are by default, breached. In October 2023, David Gorski referred to McKernan’s initial preprint as an “awful study” and follow up studies being “equally as bad”. Thus it is unsurprising further attempts were made to label COVID vaccines as DNA contaminated. The Global Vaccine Data Network provide an excellent refutation of what they call Plasmid-Gate. As a highly COVID-19 vaccinated nation, Australia is used in their piece as an example to debunk the claim of so-called “turbo cancers” resulting from COVID-19 vaccination. SBS recently reported that last year, biologist Phillip Buckhaults from the University of South Carolina spoke before a state panel postulating the possible consequences of DNA contamination. When his comments took flight on social media he quickly followed up on X with insistence that such a risk was “purely theoretical”. They further reported that:
Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia said [DNA] fragments were “clinically and utterly harmless”.
“These DNA fragments would have to enter the cytoplasm, which is that part of the cell outside of the nucleus, and our cytoplasm hates foreign DNA,” Offit said. “It has innate immune mechanisms as well as enzymes to destroy foreign DNA.”
Also interested in supposed DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines are Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent. Rennick has pushed both the GMO and DNA contamination angle for well over a year. Broadbent remains vocal in parliament to this day, has congratulated Port Hedland Council for calling for an end to COVID vaccines and has furnished Australia’s PM with material on the matter. Broadbent raised his concerns in parliament on 18 November, and I recommend watching this 5 minute video of him speaking.
Another voice to echo Julian Gillespie, is erstwhile ABC journalist Maryanne Demasi. Perhaps her contribution is best summed up in the COVID vaccine conspiracy film she narrated, The Truth – About COVID-19 shots. Erroneously labeled a documentary, it was raved about by Gillespie. And understandably so, given that it includes all his favourite vaccine conspiracies, champions the case and complaints associated with Fidge v Pfizer and lists Gillespie as a source. Demasi also has a Substack account, and has kept her subscribers up to date with DNA contamination developments. In addition Demasi claims the TGA “hides from” reports of SIDS, post vaccination, the TGA and FDA ignored DNA contamination of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and of course that the TGA response to the claim that mRNA vaccines exhibit DNA contamination, is wrong.
Very late on Christmas Eve 2023, Santa had just dropped me a rather special present.
I more or less knew what it was by feeling the packaging, but still fumbled hastily until it sat gleaming in my hand. There it was. A brand new COVID-19 infection.
I could hear him jingling happily into the distance, with the words “naughty” and “nice” echoing on the breeze. Then, “falsifiable hypotheses” wafted back.
Of course! I suddenly remembered a discussion years ago, soaking our blistered feet in cured reindeer urine, when he told me anything that could be falsified was inherently “naughty”. Wrongly, I thought I had properly explained things to him.
This time, I’d sort him out. “Santa, Santa. I just KNOW we’ve had this conversation before”, I yelled in his direction.
I continued.
” Making a list, and checking it twice , gonna find out who’s naughty and nice… does not a falsifiable hypothesis make. I just… I mean, I can’t even….”.
He answered with a vague reference to falsifying anti-vaxxer claims and something even more vague about my feet needing another urine soak. Next thing an apparition-like, misty glob of reindeer, a sleigh, a fat, smelly-chap, sacks of presents and boxes of Rapid Antigen Tests was in front of me. Santa folded his arms and confidently started his defence.
I responded,
“Wait! What?! Say that again. I’ve been ‘naughty’, because I revealed falsification, and therefore I can’t enjoy Christmas this year? No, no dude, you’re attributing subjective emotional qualities to the entire notion of the falsibility hypothesis. Yeah I get it – you’re saying if I hadn’t showed things were totally false that I’d have been ‘nice’, particularly because you were checking it twice. But if I may, with respect old chap, it simply doesn’t work that way.”
He laughed, pointing at me, and asked, “Why the fud not?”
I was feeling far from well but managed.
“Well because, my long-bearded, voluminous-bellied friend. The very notion that the hypothesis can be falsified, is what lends it such robust integrity in the first place. Suggesting falsifiability is ‘naughty’ and anything not shown to be false is ‘nice’, is likely a position arrived at via a sequence of logical fallacies.
He said I was making some sense but sounding very lah-de-dah. So, I went on.
“Okay, let’s agree your position is that honesty or not ‘being false’, can be labelled very simply as ‘nice’. Cool? Righto then. And that dishonesty, or being deliberately false can be labelled as ‘naughty’. So, deliberate falsehoods coming from, ooh let’s say anti-vaxxers, are ‘naughty’. In fact they are known for providing so-called data based on fabrication, and fraud. So, let’s say ‘very naughty’.
Now, that all sounds okay, but it can’t really be tested beyond the scope of opinion. It also takes unnecessary work and lends credence to fraudsters. Better then, that the theory or hypothesis is one that can be tested and logically refute the idea being questioned, particularly if the falsification can be based on empiricism (what we see or experience).”
Santa asked if empiricism was like the Black Runes-of-Empiricism that Senator Malcolm Roberts used, to make a mockery of climate change.
“Why yes, you’ve heard of him then? A total… whoa, okay… sorry, yes, yes I did see the pontoons strapped to the sleigh. Bit sloshy up North… I can grasp that. Reality and Roberts don’t get on, Santa. Not a fan are we? No Ho, eh? Ah, well… er, no we can’t do the sword thing anymore. No, no the Blood Eagle never did take on down South. Sorry. Free speech and such. Oh? Well, um, I’d prefer to say we’ve become, “civilised” but “as sturdy as walrus diarrhoea” will do for any justified criticism in this case, old chap.”
Santa mumbled on about colourful torment to Roberts for a while, many involving objects I had never heard of, then he then gradually worked his way back to chatting about falsifying arguments and hypotheses.
I jumped in.
“So, see it’s simple really. If you can devise a method to falsify an argument that someone is proposing, then it is held to a greater standard of proof because it is possible to falsify it. Even if it has never been falsified. It just means it is possible to imagine or construct an argument to falsify it.”
I was by now feeling pretty crook and thought I might try my luck at swapping my present.
“Now Santa. Maaate, buddy, bloke. I realise we’re a long way from naughty and nice but I hope this clears things up, and clafifies the obvious error of this rather unique present you’ve dropped off. I guess this is one test I’d like to have seen falsified as it were… Nudge, nudge. Any chance you can wave the magic stocking..?
What’s that? Yes, yes, I did expose a bunch of anti-vaxxer arguments as false. They were false – fabricated in fact. In fact they were all bad. Thanks for noticing – it’s quite a long way for news to travel up North. What do you mean I’m still naughty? Er, yeah, okay… sure… But dude, I don’t CARE how many times you’re making a list, and checking it twice . Didn’t you understand a single thing we just discussed?
So, I’m what now? I’m too Skeptical? So I’m naughty because I’m too Skeptical? Oh, righty-Ho-Ho! What? Well, yes I’ve had a few COVID vaccines. Oh, I see that’s what this is. But I never said they were 100% protective; that’s an anti-vax logical fallacy. Gawd, Santa! Vaccines do reduce symptoms though. What? Well, er pretty sh*t actually. I’m running a temp of 39 C. But tomorrow I won’t be.”
Incredible! Santa seemed to be warming up to Gish gallop. Time to wrap this up.
“Anyway bloke. It’s getting late. Shouldn’t you be flying toward the West by now? Time zones and all that. You’re what?! You’re not flying!? Oh?
Making a list, 
and checking it twice 
, gonna find out 
Losing In The Lucky Country 