Sadie OGrady

Immunisation: The case against

Image: AAP

Not part of the child immunisation “herd”, Sadie O’Grady asks you to think twice about allowing the government to marginalise those who are different.


The current government’s recent decision to financially blackmail low socio-economic families who conscientiously object to immunisation has me feeling like I’m living in some kind of dystopian nightmare.

Yet conversely, this situation has a medieval feel to it, atmospheric of a “ye-olde-times witch hunt”. Remember the persecution of countless women who were falsely accused of denying the new status quo of “science” in regards to managing the health of their communities?

Throw me in the river with my hands in a bind, regardless of what I might say in this article as I already feel doomed to be burnt at the stake for not immunising my children.

I will be affected financially by this decision, however, that is not my main concern. I am extremely grateful for the current system that can support people such as myself to have food, shelter and access to clean water. Woe betide my scarlet letter of conscientious objection. The term “conscientious” is defined as “wishing to do one’s work thoroughly and diligently”. It also has meaning relating to a person’s conscience. In September of 2001 as I sat pregnant, like a bursting fruit, with my first child, I watched people jumping from the Twin Towers in New York. What a scary world we live in.

While I was pregnant, I thoroughly examined the ingredients within vaccinations (which was enough to put me off), researched scholarly journal articles on adverse effects, looked at the processes of disease mutation that would not be covered by the current immunisations and decided that, as my newborn child came into this world, I did not wish to inject anything into his body. My own immunity and antibodies processed through the umbilica and my colostrum would cover my new small human. I even asked for the recommended Vitamin K injection to be administered orally. I had no problems consulting a doctor and filling out the necessary forms for my conscientious objection.

In 2009, while studying a degree and working full-time within the disabilities sector of education, I fell pregnant again. From 2001 to 2009 there were nine new vaccinations added to the national immunisation program. I could go into a tangential aside here about the vaccine injuries I discussed with countless parents in my occupation who believed that their children’s disabilities were directly correlated to immunisations, but I won’t. These accounts were not taken seriously as Australia became a more libellous country in line with our American counterparts. The heartache and stories of these people are too precious to be ignored, but they were. When I tried to lodge my conscientious objection form with the HIC immunisation register, I was denied a signing by a doctor at my local clinic and had to ask another clinic to sign the form. I had to lodge three forms, two of which had been previously lodged and “lost”, and on the third time I finally received the acceptance of my conscientious objection.

I tell my story so people will have a better understanding of the processes. They don’t make it easy, so you had better be very sure you want to persecuted every time you go to the hospital because your child has a minor health problem. I want to make it extremely clear here that I am not anti-vax, I am pro-choice. The language used to define those who make decisions against the status quo is deplorable and demonising. I have seen abhorrent rhetoric from keyboard warriors, stating that people like me and my children “deserve to die”. I love my children. I would do anything to ensure they are free from harm. I respect your parenting choices as you should respect mine, but don’t call me a “moron” or “stupid” or a “conspiracy nut” because I have researched and examined properties within vaccines that I do not wish to intravenously inject into my healthy child.

Let me ask you some questions.

Have you heard of foetal bovine serum? That’s in the FLUARIX vaccine currently being administered, yet has been delayed this year because it’s not really going to cover the latest wild strains. Perhaps you might want to check out how they obtain those cells from cow foetuses.

Have you heard of the Horvath review outcomes in regards to febrile convulsions in infants because of PANVAX and FLUVAX? You can find it on the government website, along with a list of people within the industry who have to state their conflicts of interest with “Big Pharma”.

Can you really honestly tell me that you have researched what is going on, or are you just happy in the bosom of a government that treats you like livestock, as one of the “herd”?

Did you know that most pharmaceutical companies make upwards of three billion dollars per year  “maintaining your health”.

First they came for the refugees on Nauru and you stood by and did nothing.

Then they came for the remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and you did nothing.

Then they came for the informed fringe dwellers, the marginalised and the poor, who decided that they wished to conscientiously object to immunisation, and the agendas and the programming…and you did nothing.

Are you next?

What do you hold dear to your heart in terms of principals, morality and humanity that this slippery slope of legislation, which, when passed, will open up a floodgate of precedents to steal from you?

Related posts


  1. Clifford said:

    Because in general, this type of comment smacks of the type of privilege that is normally vested in first white people, who are usually white

  2. Chris said:

    Out of interest: Smallpox, Polio, Cholera, Diptheria, Scarlet Fever, Rubella and the Black Plague. We have records going back centuries that attest to the hundreds of thousands that would die (mostly children) in any given year. Spanish Flu alone killed 100 million in 1918 (granted, this was in the aftermath of WW1, so medical care was iffy in general). These diseases have effectively disappeared in the Western World. My question is; if vaccines are simply a product of a Big Pharma conspiracy to swindle the vulnerable out of their money, where did these diseases go?

  3. Sadie O'Grady said:

    Jason, Mike -my choice not to vaccinate my less than 24 hr old child from HepB is not harming your child. The virus is blood borne. Varicella or commonly known ‘chickenpox’ only displayed 4 deaths from complications in the year prior to the vaccination being sold nationwide. The current strain of Pertussis is not even covered by the latest vaccination as it has mutated. Yes, polio was eradicated as a result of vaccination. It gave people lots of faith in vaccinations yet not all vaccinations work that way. I could go on but I suggest you look into this for yourself and make an informed choice as I did.

    Dee–yes intramuscular is the correct term for most vax, an oversight,my apologies, I can see how one word may lead you to discount the rest of the article.

    Barry -
    This page has started to collate ingredients and scientific based research, it is not anti vax if you care to take the time there are many interesting posts. It is with sadness that many of the fellow conscientious objectors are now being attacked online as their friends polarise on this issue. I think scientific based knowledge is the way to present your justifications for your choice in this matter.

    and to Clifford…well played Sir, I got a giggle out of that…ahem it’s google scholar actually.

  4. Barry said:

    Thanks Grace. I am not one for confirmation biases and false dichotomies. There is no dispute that Big Pharma makes money. You made certain specific allegations. I simply asked what you were basing these allegations on and whether you can provide links to this information. I understand it’s not “up to you” to provide me with anything. I was hoping that you would. Never mind.

  5. Grace said:

    Hi Barry..Yes thanks…yes..pharma is big business anyone can find this kind of information if you look for it – billions and billions each year for the creation and selling of vaccines. It is not up to me to provide you with evidence for or against this issue, that is for you to do. In the same way I would have to make an informed choice by researching both sides of any debate to make an unbiased and informed decision – not just research the side that I agree with. Good luck with your research.

  6. Jen Beck said:

    Ah yes, the old
    “I read it on the internet therefore it must be true” gambit, or more correctly
    “My adversary got it from the internet, therefore my adversary is gullible and thinks it’s true.”
    What about the ABC defending vaccine orthodoxy on the internet-that’s on the internet, too, isn’t it? Does the mere fact that something’s on the internet invalidate it in your eyes?
    There used to be-perhaps still are-video stores with a section containing controversial/ non-mainstream topics. Nowadays some of that happens to be on the internet. So what?
    Surely it’s content that counts, not where you can find it.
    How would you be if the all-knowing ABC broadcast an anti-vax programme in a sympathetic or at least neutral way?
    Not that I see it happening, but just say it did.
    Would the information automatically be right simply because it was on the ABC and not on the internet?
    It would be right because of facts and logic being in favour of it, and not for any other reason.

  7. Mike Zeederberg said:

    I’m a strong advocate of freedom of choice, but the choices in this issue are complicated by the fact that your choices can endanger the lives of others, some of whom have no comparable option of choice – Sadie can choose not to immunise in the comparative comfort of knowing the current stats
    around death from polio or measles are very low (the famed “herd” effect). However, if more people make that choice, those stats will change (see numbers in US) – This means those who have no choice (very young, sick, immune deficient) are put at significant increased risk through the choices of others.

    As a society, we generally don’t accept scenarios where the choice of one is allowed to endanger another – for example, whilst we haven’t banned smoking (it’s still a personal choice), we have stopped people smoking in environments where others exposed to it have no choice about being there – ie. banning it in clubs where the staff can’t avoid the risk of secondary smoking.

    And the choice around vaccinating is comparable to that – whilst it’s your personal choice, what you choose has implications on others and the society you live in, and where those with no choice are exposed to harmful consequences, then that choice is removed.

    So Sadie, the “but it’s my choice” argument is flawed. Unless you can work out what the vaccination equivalent is of smoking outdoors where there no consequences for anyone else. At the moment, choosing not to vaccinate is similar to lighting up a cigarette in the neo-natal ward of a hospital and claiming you should be allowed because it’s your personal choice.

  8. T said:

    Because parents and musicians can’t be informed or educated? I would stop now mate. Look into history at all the ‘general’ public who changed our world by asking questions.

  9. T said:

    Sad to hear you are that small minded – I too disagree with this article but would never stop Sadie from asserting her experience when it is related to a recent policy change. One day you may listen to an opinion you don’t agree with that is ABOUT the public and BY the general public without throwing a tantrum.

  10. Barry said:

    Thanks Grace. Are you able to provide evidence supporting the proposition that vaccinations are unsafe, please? I’m not really sure what the last sentence means. Are you suggesting that the weight of scientific evidence is not, in fact, supportive of the safety of vaccines but that evidence is being selected or censored because of a profit motive? If so, that is a big call to make. Those who are sceptical of climate change use these very same arguments. I am inclined to remain very sceptical of this type of argument without the provision of any evidence in support. I am, however, always open to be persuaded and I would be very interested in reading any evidence you have supporting either of these propositions. Are you able to assist?

  11. Jason Bryce said:

    It is not a real debate or real freedom of speech when on one side is a parent/musician/writer and on the other side is the entire profession of medicine.

    If you want a real debate, give me a Professor of Medicine or a Professor of Public Health who is anti-vaccination. That would be a legitimate debate.

  12. Grace said:

    Yes…it is true…science cannot ‘prove’ anything. It can only provide when evidence is given from both the pro and the anti – all should be given fair consideration – but that doesn’t happen for exactly the reason you discuss. When there are huge corporations making huge profits from mass production of vaccines then I am sure their their ‘evidence’ is given more weight.

  13. DrJ(Sydney) said:

    What Jason Bryce seems to be saying “I do not value freedom of speech. I do not believe in democracy’. Jason, a head in sand approach will not help. As a doctor, I am pro-vaccination, but I would never silence another in my pursuit of truth and education.

  14. Grace said:

    Tracy – Sadie O’Grady has done extensive research on this please don’t assume because her choice is different to yours that her position on vaccination is wrong and yours is right…if you read the article carefully..she says she is not necessarily against vaccination, but is pro-choice, without government interference and blackmail..and I agree with that.

  15. Jason Bryce said:

    You shouldn’t be provoking this debate because on one side is a few middle class parents who think they have done some research and on the other side is the entire weight of the world’s collected professional medical wisdom. At stake in this “debate” is the health and welfare of our children, which is best protected by all acting together, not by giving every know-it-all a choice.

  16. Grace said:

    Agreed…TBS should be printing all sides of the debate – it is immature of Jason Bryce to think that everyone will simply agree with his values on this page. I am not pro or against – I am pro-choice….

  17. Jason Bryce said:

    This is nutty and irresponsible. You shouldn’t be publishing this. I’m unsubscribing from The Big Smoke

  18. Tracy said:

    Jenny Beck, anyone who uses as a way to defend their position risks loses people’s interest due to the inaccuracies on that site and who founded it. I am not interested in changing your mind but simply asking you to analyse a broader data of research so you can be educated adequately on this matter. The opposing article on the big smoke today may help you, but I recommend you, and Sadie O’Grady, look into research which can analyse proponents of evidence in an objective and unbiased manner. This will help you and the author of this article to begin referencing research that is valid and accurate. Thank you.

  19. AlexandraTselios said:

    Hi Jenny, I am the publisher of TBS. We alway publish comments as is (unless of course they breach code of conduct) – so if your comment with the videos didn’t go through please feel free to try to post it again – it is not a matter of mods not approving. Thanks!

  20. Jenny Beck said:

    Well if you’re talking about injections, they certainly don’t get eaten or swallowed, do they?
    They therefore bypass the body’s normal means of mediating beteeen itself and the outsdie world.
    And what about what they put in them?
    Arte you completely oblivious to that? Have you even read this article?

  21. Jenny Beck said:

    What ARE you talking about?
    You can speak for yourselkf but I’m noit into some game of this kid’s life is worth more than another kid’s life.
    Have yuou ever looked at the case against vaccines?
    I doubt it.
    THe mods wouldn’t publish the link to the youtubve video I put in my above comment, so ithat’s why it appears disjointed.
    I’m glad they put the comment up at all, however.
    The video is an Australian anti-vaccination film that’s been put on youtube.
    Youy now have enough info to find it, and in the process you’ll find a lot of other good films.
    But I’m almost certain you won’t bother.

  22. Tracy said:

    That is exactly my point Jenny Beck, you can’t tell me the children who died due to vaccines (look up statistics on that comparative to risks please) are more worthy than the children who die due to fear tactics and propaganda by people like yourself. I politely ask you to research the comparative numbers before telling people that one life is worth more than another.

  23. Jenny Beck said:

    Tell that to Shane Tucker and other parents who’ve lost children to vaccines.
    Shane’s story is told on this video and starting @ about 28:10.
    You thought you were so clever with your comment I’m sure.

  24. Barry said:

    In the interests of remaining open-minded and independently and objectively analysing evidence as it is presented, I think it is important to hear what people have to say about this issue and the evidence they present, without letting confirmation biases control our reason and rationality toward either “side” of the discussion. I am not an immunologist and I assume neither is Sadie nor the many who are so strongly stating their views on this forum. Experts in the field are overwhelmingly of the view that immunisation is safe and that there is no link between immunisation and neurodevelopment disorders. The prevailing view is that temporal association between vaccination and neurodevelopment deterioration is not evidence of causal association and that there is no evidence for such a conclusion to be drawn. For this reason, as a layman, I am inclined to accept their conclusions. My position is the same on climate change. But as further evidence is presented, that must be taken into account and analysed. The opinions of experts and the conclusions they reach about any new evidence is important for those of us who do not have the expertise to fully understand the significance of any new scientific evidence fully. Autodidacticism in the medical sciences bears close scrutiny. Scepticism of the conclusions of the scientific community cannot be based purely on the fact that they profit from their solutions. That in itself is a perfect non-sequitur and requires profit to be motivating almost the entire scientific community to be lying about their conclusions. Much more evidence for this proposition is required. Sadie, you mentioned that you researched scholarly articles on the adverse effects. Can you provide a link to those please?

  25. Tracy said:

    Tell me again about how a dead child is better than an autistic one

  26. Jenny Beck said:

    Great to see the prevailing view challenged here by what happens to be the truth.
    Kudos to The Big Smoke and Sadie O’Grady!
    In 1992 the High Court ruled that medical practitioners have a duty of care towards their patients that included informing them of the risks of any medication that might be offered, even if the patient doesn’t ask.
    I can’t see how Abbott’s latest high-handed blunder could possibly be compatible with a High Court ruling that makes the patient’s right to choose their own medication a foundation of proper medical practice.
    I hope I’m right when I say that this simply is not gonna fly.
    Abbott will rue the day he did this-it will be challenged, and successfully.

  27. Dee said:

    Vaccines do not get injected intravenously so I’m not sure how much research you have done to make the other statements. If I want advice on something I ask a doctor, if I want advice on my car I’ll ask a mechanic.

  28. Rebecca said:

    All this tells me is Sadie O’Grady is using human lives and flawed research as a way to have a dig at the current government. Sorry to hear you don’t understand the value, importance and privilege of vaccination but keep your children away from mine.

  29. Clifford said:

    Another white woman has access to google. Look out, Dr Karl.

Comments are closed.

Share via