Why you shouldn’t take advice from a journalist that uses incitement as an angle

Kylie Lang is a ‘journalist’, and it would seem she is clearly desperate to influence a certain type of reader in her recent piece for the Courier Mail. Her article titled “Don’t let anti-vax loonies take over” sets a tone right from the heading. The article itself is bursting at the seams with name-calling, weak data and opaque information. The journalism creed written by Walter Williams in 1914 states that “that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust…. also that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism”. It seems Kylie may have missed the memo. 
 
The Covid 19 pandemic has been revaluated by the CDC to show that the virus is 50 times less deadly than originally modelled. Over 99% survival rate for those 69 and under, and 94.6% for those over 70. With over a year of data and experience with C19, we can clearly see that the virus is most harmful to the elderly and others who are vulnerable with terminal illness or serious comorbidities such as obesity. There is referenceable science and data to review. 
 
How does forcing a vaccination upon the entire population of the planet to protect this very small percentage of human beings make sense? Well to put it quite simply, it doesn’t.  
 
We are being conditioned to view fighting for our freedoms as being selfish. Medical freedom is a basic human right and bodily autonomy is not a gift from the Government. Human beings are able to evaluate risk and decide for themselves how they choose to go about their lives on a day-to-day basis.  
 
The language in this article is very strong and is designed to incite and divide. “The bleating of the ignorant will become even more irritating than it is now”, “Now is not the time to go easy on these blinkered anti-vaxxers”, “convincing people to behave like responsible citizens will be (a hurdle to overcome)”. 
 
At VCA we choose to rise above the cheap-shot journalism and simply focus on facts and data. Let us take a look at some of Kylie’s main points. 
 
“Australia’s economy stands to take a $55billion dollar hit if a vaccine is NOT USED WIDELY by the end of 2021”:  
This sadly, is very true. But it did not have to be. We have covered the billions of dollars that the government has committed to rushed-to-market vaccines in previous articles already. These decisions about how to spend our tax dollars have been made by few people, without any consulting with the public whatsoever. Prime Minister Scott Morrison showed his hand early on by stating that the C19 vaccine would be as “mandatory as you can possibly make it”, before quickly backtracking these sentiments. However, Health Minister Greg Hunt went on the record this week stating that the “although the vaccine will not be mandatory at this stage, theGovernment has been very cautious not to rule that out”. Alarm bells should be ringing. Do we need a vaccine showing 90% efficacy (in limited clinical trials), for a virus with a survival rate of >99%? 
 
“The compelling reasons vaccines are being developed for urgent approval is lost on deluded individuals who reject science and common sense”:  
Kylie doesn’t share any of these compelling reasons in her article, however it’s important to note that science is never settled, unlike the rhetoric which is being repeated over and over again through the television and media. Governments around the world are still using the outdated framework which was installed at the beginning of the pandemic, to justify unlawful lockdowns and vastly disproportionate restrictions on citizens across the globe. In actuality, Science is transparent and peer reviewed. It is revisited, retested time and time again. It is an ever-moving target. That is not what we are seeing with C19. The Victorian Government, which initiated some of the harshest and longest lockdowns to date, have refused to release any of their “expert health advice” to the public. The World Health Organisation has gone on the record to state that they no longer condone lockdowns, and they should not be used any longer as a tool to manage the virus. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” The virus has been with us for a year, do we not have a better method in place than to put citizens on house arrest? In South Australia after a cluster arose of 22 cases, the Premier ordered a severe six-day lockdown where the 1.67million people who resided in the State were not even allowed to leave the house to walk their dog. This decision was not based on health advise, rather a testimony to contact tracers from a person who tested positive for C19. Obviously not based on science, the Chief Health Officer (CHO) of South Australia went on to explain there was a new “sneaky strain” of Covid to justify this lockdown. This decision was spectacularly reversed 72 hours later with other CHO’s chiming in to confirm there are no new strains of C19. Because if there were, wouldn’t the vaccines become redundant? 
 
“While the elderly and immunocompromised… are most at risk of dying from coronavirus no one is immune and effects on survivors can be serious”: 
There have been no long-term peer-reviewed studied of the lasting effects of Covid. Many long term effects remain unknown. In fact, the main recorded after effect for those requiring hospitalisation is shortness of breath and fatigue, noted as being similar to the after-effects of a severe flu. This is actually a non-fact-based statement designed to incite fear. Let’s not forget the images that came through the television from China at the beginning of the pandemic; people laying dead in the street or shopping mall, while medical workers dressed head to toe in hazmat suits tended to the lifeless bodies. It all seems pretty far fetched knowing what we know now.  
 
When all is said and done, this matter is very simple. Human beings should not be forced to inject their bodies or the bodies of the children with drugs if they don’t want to. This is a basic human right. The Nuremberg Code states as point one “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. We should not feel pressured or coerced into accepting any medical intervention, especially if one of those reasons is because our Government has overcommitted our nation financially to a bank with no door. Commercial decisions are not health focused.  
 
All coronavirus vaccine makers have been plagued with issues throughout the trial phases, with a woman in the UK contracting transverse myelitis as well as a doctor in Brazil tragically losing his life. These rushed-to-market vaccines will have no long-term safety studies carried out when the first doses are administered. For example, with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted a provisional determination so the vaccine can be fast-tracked, and no clinical data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine needs to be submitted for SIX years according to the Australian Government. Added to this, the vaccine makers are immune from any liability for injuries they may cause. The Australian Government has even gone on the record to say that the elderly and vulnerable will NOT be receiving the first doses of the vaccines until they are deemed safe – yes, you read that right. Will you blindly sign up to be a Guinea pig for the entire planet? 
 
Where there is risk, there must always be choice.  
 
We encourage all of our readers to follow the links and do their own research. Hopefully, Kylie Lang comes across some facts along the way too. 

---