Vaccination law in New South Wales, Australia is very clear.  If a mother is hepatitis B surface antigen positive, the parents can be offered immunoglobulin and the vaccine for the baby, and if the parents say, "No", the paper work is completed and that's it. But that's not what happened in Australia this week. Dr David Isaacs, who was not even involved in the case to begin with, decided it was time to make an "example" of two parents. What he didn't realise was that he picked the wrong target, and that they would go into hiding. Furthermore, he also forgot the story of Liam Holloway, and what happens when other parents are outraged when doctors abuse parents, as well as the law.

Dr Isaacs point of view is stated here: "I am a strong believer in vaccinations being voluntary but not getting this baby vaccinated is a form of child abuse," he said. "We are talking a potentially major and awful outcome for this child and it is our job to protect children when they can't make decisions for themselves."

Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 per cent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother and "about 30 per cent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young … I don't understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks."

Professor Isaacs has said that 60 to 95% of babies will not catch Hepatitis B from a carrier mother. Okay? He says that the potential outcome for this child is major and awful?

Well, I have a story to tell you intrepid readers, about a New Zealand family in the town I live in. They just happen to be close friends, so I know this first hand. A somewhat zealous doctor, discovered in his practice, a man whose records showed that he had been a known core antigen Hepatitis B carrier for over 30 years. (How this fact had seemingly escaped the practice staff's attention is another issue, but let's not go there right now) Core antigen positive, is worse than just surface antigen positive, as it "means" that the person is infectious.

This doctor also discovered that the man had repeatedly refused interferon treatment. Aghast, he discovered that the couple never used any contraception. How irresponsible!  The wife was surely in mortal danger. Criminally, all seven children, the oldest an adult.... were... gasp....(you guessed it...) unvaccinated!

Enraged at such total irresponsibility given that a vaccine had been available for babies for 21 years, he thought it would be a great idea to make an example of this family. He "ordered" that the wife, and all seven children be blood tested which they complied with. Surely (he must have thought) they would all be carriers! Yum! Perhaps he could "force" them all onto interferon treatment. Who knows what propaganda value these barbaric child abusers might be to him!

To his utter disappointment, the blood tests showed that the wife and children were not hepatitis surface antigen or core antigen carriers, and they were also hepatitis B ANTIBODY NEGATIVE.  They had... no immunity!   (According to the test results.)   So the parents had snogged, and had sex without condoms or any contraception, for near on three decades, and NOTHING had happened! The father, a demonstrative soul, constantly kissed and cuddled his children, and by this time, his grandchildren as well.

Of course, the said doctor then announced that the wife, children and grandchildren MUST all be vaccinated immediately, since they were in deadly danger of becoming mortally sick, carriers, getting cirrhosis or cancer, and dying.

The family told the doctor to go fertilise his lemon tree, and butt out of their lives.

You will NOT see this case written up in any medical journal or part of any media blitz, because it proves Dr Isaacs figures to be a guestimate plucked from some convenient crystal ball.  This family doesn't "suit" their purposes.  There is no emotional pity to be extorted from it.

Thinking realistically with regard to the Australian baby's chances of being infected from the mother... which figure is it to be?

5 per 100, or 40 per 100?

There is a huge difference between the two.  Perhaps... they don't know? Did any journalist bother to ask that question? If not, why not?

This figure which says that five to forty percent of children can catch hepatitis B from their carrier mothers is like saying that anywhere between 5,000 people to 40,000 people might get killed on Australian roads every year. Any statistician who came up with those sorts of statistical range would be called incompentent.

Hasn't hepatitis B has been around long enough for doctors to have a definitive answer?  If not, why don't they come out and admit that they haven't actually got the foggiest idea, and are just guessing so that they can sound like they know something? I'm surprised not one journo has called them on this gaffe.

Here's how I see this little game.

No-one actually gives a monkey's trumpet about this family or this child. After all, given the scare mongering doctors keep on rolling out about how people die from chickenpox, the flu and every other microbial monster under the sun, that argument above should surely apply to all vaccines, not just this one?

They don't seem to care about the "risk" to the father here, or the three year old.  All the attention is on the baby. They haven't SAID that the mother is core antigen, which makes me wonder whether she's not actually infectious. This baby has now become an medico-political pawn in a game of emotional blackmail. The stakes here seem to me to be quite high, and far reaching.

Is this the "nose of the camel"? 

Will the next move be to go around impounding all the girls whose parents don't vaccinate their kids with Gardasil, on the basis that they are condemning their children to cervical cancer? Will they go around impounding all the kiddies whose parents don't use the flu vaccine, on the basis that their fluey babies/children might kill their grandma already vaccinated with a flu shot that is as useful as tap-water?

Maybe. 

Perhaps this is the medical profession "flying a kite"; testing the waters; seeing how the public reacts. Have they conditioned other people well enough so that they won't "mind" if all their rights as parents are eventually stripped off them?

If the public gets outraged at the parents, and backs Dr Isaacs, he will be mightily pleased.

You watch. If that happens, the neck of the camel will come next, then the body.  Before you know it the tent won't be yours any more, and anyone who doesn't vaccinate against anything will be accused of being some sort of terrorist, and chucked into the clink, along with the child murderers, ...  and you know what inmates do to them!

Unless of course, it all backfires, like it did with Liam Holloway in New Zealand.

Level headed outraged New Zealanders, said "Sod you," to the medical profession, who were trying to force chemo onto a child who didn't want it after suffering hugely from the first lot.

While the doctors said the child would be dead within six months and a nationwide hunt was authorized, ordinary kiwi parents got organised, kept quiet about it, allocated safe houses, kept watch, moved the family on as the police moved in, and the child, the parents and the rest of the family were safely hidden for 20 months until finally the doctors caved, and cancelled the court order.

Now, the question is, whether there are enough Australians who have the guts to stick their necks out, and do the same thing. Do you Aussies CARE enough to send a message to doctors telling them just WHO is the parent here and just WHO has the right to make the choices here?  Are you Aussies going to stand up, and make the law stick?

Because if their aren't enough Australians to enforce existing law, and support a parent's right of choice, then one day, it just might be you.

It's over to you, our Aussie cousins, to stand up, and show us Kiwis that YOU too have honourable mettle, and are heartily sick of the nanny state dictating to us, what, where, when and how we should even breathe.