The post was on :-
WHY WE DON’T NEED VACCINES!!
Leukemia is arsenic deficiency
Alzheimer disease is a doctor induced disease due to staton drugs
arsenic is a mineral we need!!!
For the record I in no way agree with the above nor am I a friend of Jackson Black’s, I do not know him, I do not recall so much as having a PM on facebook with him. I don’t say this so much as to disassociate myself with him, but more with what he said, his views do not reflect mine, nor am I an anti-vaxxer. I am simply responding objectively from a legal stand point in Administrative law.
In particular to this comment
We just had it ordered by the court that my youngest get vaccinated. My two oldest who are 13 and 14 are not and my youngest is not get either but when we have to go to doctor I will see if he wants to sign a statement of responsibility before he vaccinates.
My response is here:
Nicole Otf Roggentin I would use a different approach. That will not work. The Doctor will not sign, he has been told he does not need to, and he is right, he doesn’t.
I would not take an approach that makes the Doctor your foe or gets his back up.
I would take a genuine and sincere inquisitorial approach. Study the specific vaccine about to be administered, know everything there is to know about it.
The legislation provides for informed consent. Go in to see the doctor not with the view that you object to the vaccine or vaccines generally.
Go in with your specific questions in a humble and inquisitive way. Seeking information about the Vaccine about to be given to your child. Compare what the Australian Immunisation Handbook vs the Manufacturers information slip has to say vs the information you have from other reputable and qualified sources (not blogs on the internet or fb pages, you need SOURCE documents, real proof, documented). This should be then compared to the unique information you know about your child for instance any known allergies or suspected allergies, what illness you know the child has had and suspect has developed a natural immunity for.
At the end of this process if the Doctor can resolve all your concerns you would be able to give free and prior informed consent. If however when time runs out for that medical appointment you may need to come back quite a few times to be sure you understand, each of which I believe to be a maximum of 45minutes.
After each 45minute consultation the Doctor should give you a medical certificate to confirm that is what was discussed and list what is yet to be resolved.
If it should reach a stage where the Doctor can not answer your valid concerns sufficiently for you to give informed consent, then you may need to be referred to an expert or get a second opinion. The treating physician should now either give you a referral to see a specialist or a medical certificate stating the last remaining unresolved issues which you can bring to another doctor for a second opinion.
IN THE MEANTIME after each doctors consultation you need to notify Centerlink that you are in the process of granting free and prior informed consent and provide the Doctors Certificate as proof.
If Centrelink accepts that first medical certificate then the process continues as above, if they reject it, at any stage, now we have a “controversy” (that is a legal term) which needs to be resolved.
You would then write to the Secretary of the Department requesting a review of the decision made by the Department.
Should the Secretary also reject your claim, we now have a “matter” (another legal term) you can now elevate your complaint to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
If you lose in the AAT you may now appeal to the Federal Court then to the Full Federal Court and even all the way to the High Court.
If EVERYBODY followed this method, a MASS ACTION which is Co-ordinated, each step of the way the team analyses results from each response, collaborating together in refining each persons unique complaint as a hive. This kind of action is virtually unstoppable.
The unstoppable Force of the Peoples Will and the Parents Love of their Child meeting the Immovable wall erected by Big Brother. The Courts being the ultimate adjudicator of each individual claim.
Your voices will be heard loud and clear. Most important justice is served. For it is the will of Parliament that the legislation provides for informed consent, there is no restrictions made by parliament for this, there is no deadline. This can only be interpreted as the will of Parliament for the did not need to add those words. The could have omitted them altogether and not make it a requirement for the No Jab, No Pay legislation. They did not omit it they deliberately included it to remind each parent that you need to provide free and prior informed consent for the procedure.
Parliament did not intend that you could be forced or coerced in this matter, that is precisely why Parliament added in the pre-requisite of your free and prior informed consent.
“NOTHING IN THIS POST/WEBSITE IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE, IT IS PURELY INFORMATION TO ASSIST YOUR UNDERSTANDING, WHICH WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU BRING TO A LAWYER AND URGE YOU TO SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.”