At the core of the Health Select Committee's immunisation recommendations to Parliament,( under the Chairman, Dr Paul Hutchison's name), is Nikki Turner’s Six Star Plan, a document submitted "privately", which is being much talked about. Page 32 of the recommendations to Parliament report smooth-talks one issue: “Declinations to be reviewed regularly and families given opportunities to reconsider.” So if this recommendation become law, then one of the consequences will be, as per the blog on Paul Offit’s recommendations, that non-vaccinated parents are annually interrogated by government approved counsellors/Gestapo. A bit like the mafia tactics of "If you decline our offer we will send the boys around to 'give you the opportunity’ to change your mind." Inquisitions are only reserved for non-conformists who refuse to make the “right” choice, never the “NIKE” parents.
So while on the one hand, bullying may not be acceptable in the playground, yet another subtle form is endorsed and encouraged by our medical system, and acted out by public health nurses and other professionals against children in medical facilities, schools, and parents in their homes.. The insidiousness (and illegality) of Nikki Turner’s Six Star Plan, and the recommendations to the government, go way deeper than just bullying. They actually threaten the fundamental basis of informed choice, as well as hobbling a doctor’s ability to both think, and speak.
To understand the Six Star Plan, you have to ask yourself the question, “Is she really saying what I think she is?”
Like many bound by the system, who flock with birds of the same feather, Nikki Turner is convinced by what she thinks “should” be done, and should be law.
It’s the “why” that the public don’t usually quite understand.
Nikki Turner has been extensively media-groomed and vaccine-company-courted. Her modus operandi is that of a very smooth operator, who power talks, using carefully loaded language. She also wrote and presented an official presentation on IMAC's letterhead, but the recommendations from the Health Select Committee focus on her private submissions.
Here is the Six Star Plan. Please download and print this out, read it for yourself, and underline anything that catches your attention.
(Here also is the MOH general submission, and the MOH reply to Nikki Turner’s Six Star Plan.)
At the top of page two of the Six Star Plan is this sentence:
“In the current NZ environment, parents are expected to make an active and informed decision to immunise their children.”
What do you think this means?
To me, this means: In the current NZ environment, parents are expected to immunise their children.
“Choice” means one thing to Nikki Turner: “TO immunise”.
Here is a copy of the very first brochure Nikki Turner wrote for IMAC. This is the information foundation upon which IMAC was founded. Read it carefully – read her interpretation of choice and aims, and note the sources of information.
The second sentence at the top of page two of the Six Star Plan reads:
“There are a range of community conversations that negatively affect confidence in the science of vaccination and the immunisation programme.”
To me, this means: “There are people who provide others with information which gives people the confidence to NOT vaccinate their children.”
Do you agree?
The rest of the document implies this "community discussion must be neutralised or stopped.
The fifth statement on page two says: “Equal weighting is often given to personal experience, and anecdote, with these often presented as ‘fact’ rather than opinion.”
To me, this means, “you should take no note of other people’s experiences or anecdotes because they are unreliable and people often don’t understand that what they think is wrong.”
Would this be a fair comment?
Except of course, when Nikki Turner puts up other people’s stories and anecdotes on IMAC’s website. Being a doctor, the "gullible" view her anecdote as fact.
On page 7 Nikki says: “Providing an understanding of disease risk in the New Zealand context requires New Zealand images and stories.”
What do you think that means?
Amongst other things, it means that, for example, the media has carte blanche to use the likes of Charlotte Bisman’s family to scare people into immunising their children.
But they better not feature a vaccine damaged child, because those parents don’t know what they are talking about. That information will never be state approved.
Talking about New Zealand images, have you seen IMAC show you, these valid scientifically accurate “New Zealand images” for diphtheria, measles and pertussis?
This sort of evidence-based fact, is to be avoided like the plague, because the message sent isn’t supportive of the propaganda sound bites IMAC comes up with, about how vaccines now prevent all the death which happened in the past. When people see evidence like that, her threats of huge numbers of deaths if we stop vaccinating, look like fiction. REAL FACTS like these, become “non-essential” concepts, because they might make people realise that there is another side to the story.
But I hear you say, don’t we have the right to informed CHOICE?
According to Nikki Turner's Six Star Plan, vaccines are exempt from this logic.
Besides, hands up anyone who was given the full datasheet of any vaccine to take away, or any REAL evidence based medical articles to read and think about, before that needle was stuck in? Do the DOH glossies “inform” you? No, they “conform” you. They are, after all “promotional” material, to use Nikki Turner’s words on page 4.
Vaccination has been granted “sacred cow protection status” since I can remember, but Nikki Turner’s Six Star Plan now ramps this up to a whole new level, because she now wants to legally muzzle doctors, as well as community discussion and the media.
Page 4 of the Six Star Plan, has a section called “contractual obligations” which state that anyone with a vaccination providers contract will be legally obliged, “to promote the evidence‐base behind immunisation for NZ children.” There are some subtle wordings used that need to be carefully noted. In the next sentence you will read:
“All health care professionals are under a legal obligation to neither promote nor disseminate immunisation information that is not evidence‐based and not supported by the national programme.” and that all health professionals must keep to the recommended schedule time frames.
Then we read, “Contracts are to be strengthened to recognise health care professional obligations to promoting the evidence‐base”
“the” evidence base.
By the way, do you know HOW something becomes evidence based?
“So ..... which evidence base is that? It’s quite clear.
The ONLY evidence your doctor can now give you, is the evidence base which is cherry picked in order to BACK UP or SUPPORT the New Zealand vaccination schedule. Page four makes it clear that all information will be “promotional”.
Doctors are not to be allowed to discuss, disseminate or provide anything other than the promotional information Nikki Turner puts together as sound-bite packages to support the vaccination programme.
Seriously. I kid you not. I'm also astonished, that the Chair of the Committee, Dr Paul Hutchison, has so enthusiastically embraces the concepts in this blog, which the Ministry of Health disagreed with.
Let me give you a theoretical example as to how this might play out, as I "read" the wording in the recommendations to Government, and Nikki Turner's wording in the Six Star Plan
GOVERNMENT POLICY. VACCINATE ALL BABIES & CHILDREN AGAINST ALL FORMS OF INFLUENZA.
Dogma: Babies and children are at much more serious risk of influenza than most other groups – and they spread it to granny and grandpa, so that’s policy. Told somewhat simplistically, but that’s the nuts and bolts.
You “just do it” is Nikki Turner’s mantra.
So...... You go along to your doc and say, “Please Doc, can I have some evidence based medicine discussing the validity of these concepts whether the vaccines work, and whether there are other issues I should know, before I make a CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE?”
Technically, the doctor "no can do", because he’s legally obliged to ONLY give you information which SUPPORTS the vaccination programme.
So he might give you this Stockwell swine flu article, because this author says that all children should be flu vaccinated with everything at all times, because they are at risk, blah blah blah..., BECAUSE... that article SUPPORTS the New Zealand vaccination policy.
This doctor though, would not be allowed to hand the parents the last Cochrane review on Influenza vaccines in children, because that says the vaccine is about as useful as kangaroo legs on a train. That evidence base, does NOT support the vaccination policy.
This Monsalvo evidence based study, says that the only people at serious risk of swine flu, are people who have had prior exposure to similar flu strains which create antibodies which cross react with, but don’t protect against swine flu. Monsalvo says the presence of these antibodies determine the severity of swine flu. That vaccine your kid is being advised to have might just do that.
That is nicely proven by Poland, a country which doesn’t use flu vaccines, and refused to use the Swine Flu vaccine. Poland had less swine flu with less virulence than countries that did use flu vaccines. Oh no, your doctor mustn’t think about that – let alone tell you, because it’s not supportive of the New Zealand baby and childhood flu vaccination policy.
Poland is the “scientific control” to the political flu vaccination policy, - the other side of the coin to the Canadian study, which found that people who received the flu vaccination the year the swine flu started, were MORE likely to get swine flu than those who hadn’t.
Ouch! Why’s that?
Because of the principle Monsalvo pointed out. The vaccine created similar antibodies which didn’t protect, and made the vaccine recipients MORE vulnerable to infection. But the docs won’t be able to give you that study either. Tough bikkies.
This Nelson article will also be forbidden, because showing that the flu vaccinated were just as likely to get influenza as the unvaccinated, doesn’t support the New Zealand Vaccination programme.
Turner would also quarantine this Kelly article. The flu vaccinated were just as likely to get influenza as the unvaccinated, and even worse Kelly unwittingly proved Monsalvo’s point by finding this:
"Combining emergency department and general practice subjects, 29% of influenza cases were fully vaccinated compared with 47% of influenza-negative controls (Table 2). Within the control group, there was a higher percentage of full vaccination among children who tested positive for another respiratory virus compared with those who tested negative (53% vs. 34%, P <0.01)."
Like Monsalvo, this implies that that a prior Flu vaccine of any sort, might increase your risk to other viral respiratory infections.
This finding can't just be ignored as implausible, because the p value for the vaccine creating infection susceptibility, is actually stronger than the p-value for flu vaccine protection against flu.
Any sane person could read and use all these evidence based medical articles, as a factual basis to logically decide NOT to vaccinate their child for any form of the flu!
And then of course there are all the medical articles like Cannell, Urashima, Gindi, Hyponnen, Grant, Sabetta, and Laaksi (to name just a few) showing that the only people who get ANY respiratory infections are those with totally inadequate levels of vitamin D. The answer to that, is to use a cheap prescription of vitamin D, which costs about $15 a year, which gives a once a month dose which could prevent you getting a cold, the flu and pneumonia, as well as cancer and a whole host of other conditions now being associated with vitamin D deficiency.
Taking vitamin D from early autumn (if you aren't sun phobic), and NOT getting the flu, means that it's logical to have no need for any flu vaccines anyway.
Because that information doesn’t support Nikki Turner’s (sorry, the government’s) flu vaccine policy, your doctor wouldn’t be able to show any of the above, because her proposed health worker contracts locks all health providers into Nikki Turner “thought-speak”.
Got the picture yet?
Proper informed consent now becomes a criminal and contractual offence, if anyone in the medical profession disseminates evidence-based material when it counters policy...
So where it says, at the bottom of page four, “Contracts are to be strengthened to recognise health care professional obligations to promoting the evidence‐base.”, the evidence base she is talking about, is her own approved “promotional” material and “decision-making tools” to drive for one decision only.
And if all this goes ahead, parents who fail “to chose to vaccinate”, will then be subjected to yearly formal government-approved “Gestapo” session with no other material “allowed”.
And because the only places you will find the forbidden scientific information will be places like this website, and other sites labelled “anti-vaccine”, you will be told (as is normal now) that it’s all lies. You know, “those people threaten us all”.
This Six Star Plan, isn’t about balanced information, uncoerced choice or democracy.
This is about George Orwell’s “Department of Truth” - it is about cherry-picked promotional materials and tools to steer a parent’s decision SOLELY in one direction, to vaccinate their child.
In the name of “Normalising vaccination” it’s not too far a stretch to suggest that somewhere along the line, all non-consenters will be consigned to some form of “concentration” camp as well.