Vaccines are, of course, entirely safe! Doctors tell us this on a regular basis!
- So why is it that people are damaged by them, their lives compromised, and some of these damaged patients actually die?
- So why is it that the damage caused by vaccines is recognised, and the victims receive hefty compensation payments?
- And why is it that even after compensation is paid vaccines continue to be considered 'entirely safe' by doctors?
- And why is it that conventional medicine, after having done harm, do not offer victims the opportunity to get better with safer, traditional medical therapies?
No vaccine is safe, but take the influenza (flu) vaccine as an example. Doctors will, after all, be telling us over the next few months that we all ought to be having it, and that it is entirely safe.
The Mail online reported on 3rd February 2016 that a young, 10 year old boy, Josh Hadfield, was given the H1N1 vaccine on January 21, 2010, that within three weeks his mother noticed that he would fall asleep even when walking, eating or swimming, every five minutes, sleep for anything up to 19 hours a day, have frequent seizures, and that the vaccine has been found to increase significantly the risk of narcolepsy in children.
The link between the vaccine and narcolepsy (the name of the sleeping disease) was strenuously denied by the conventional medical establishment, support by the Government. This is typical of what happens to people damaged by conventional drugs and vaccines. They face an almost impenetrable wall of denial. So compensation was denied to the family through the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme because he was not deemed 'severely disabled' enough.
Now wait! The Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? What is this? And why should such an organisation exist if vaccines are 'entirely safe'? Has anyone heard of the scheme?
Denial is just one tactic used by the conventional medical establishment to hide the damage they do to patients. The other is to avoid providing patients with information, certainly information like this that conclusively proves that vaccines are not 'entirely safe'. The Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme does actually exist. It is a government scheme, and you can read about it on this government website.
"If you’re severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you could get a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000. This is called a Vaccine Damage Payment."
So Josh's mother was awarded £120,000 in damages. So that's alright then? Well, no! The Government initially refused to pay out because Josh was not deemed 'severely disabled' enough. His mover had to fight a determined campaign for several years before being awarded damages. The Mail Online quoted her as saying that "it was just a shame we had to jump through this amount of hoops to get this far".
A shame indeed, that she faced an impenetrable wall of denial. A triumph for her that she knew about the Vaccine Damage Award Scheme. Many people damaged by vaccines are not aware of this scheme, and even if they were, many would not get past the wall of doctors and NHS managers telling them that the vaccine was not to blame, that they were 'entirely safe'!
So Josh's family were eventually compensated. So did the drug company eventually had to pay up? Well, no, it does not quite work that way. The drug company tests and manufacturers the vaccine. The drug regulatory agencies pronounce that the vaccine to be safe and effective. Information is given to doctors, who believe what they are told. And doctors give it to us, courtesy of the NHS. In this way the drug companies receive their profit. But they do not pay the compensation when it damages patients! The government pays up! That is, you and I pay, taxpayers. We take responsibility, our doctors, the NHS, the drug regulatory agencies, all of whom has got it wrong, pay nothing! They just pocket their salaries. And, most important for the drug companies, they do not lose their profit, generated from the sales of a dangerous vaccine!
Yet there is a further problem. Josh's mother is also quoted in the Main Online article, as saying that "It will help secure Josh's future".
Narcolepsy did not exist before the flu vaccine. And conventional medicine, after causing this 'new' disease, has no treatment for it. This is the basis for needing to 'secure Josh's future'. He has suffered vaccine damage, and he will suffer it for the rest of his life. Conventional medicine has no treatment for narcolepsy. NHS Choices states baldy,
"There's no specific cure for narcolepsy, but you can manage the symptoms and minimise their impact on your daily life."
It is this 'management' of the symptoms, alongside a future blighted by regularly falling asleep, that the £120,000 will help pay for. There is no treatment, no cure, which is why this TruthKings article, about the same case, talks about the 'permanent' disability he will now suffer as a result of the damaged cause by the vaccine.
So the final question is this. Why does the government decides to spend £120,000 on compensation for damages without looking at alternative medical therapies to see if they can treat the condition successfully. And it can be treated successfully! The experience of many homeopaths is certainly that the condition can be treated. Two remedies immediately come to mind (although there will be many more, and the task is to find the right one for the individual).
OPIUM. This remedy is indicated where the patient is in a state of confusion, somnolence and dullness. It is commonly used in neurological conditions like narcolepsy and seizures. Opium in potency can also be used in acute conditions like stupor and coma caused by shock/fright, or when the patient suffers no pain, when respiration is slow, noisy and obstructed, when sleep is deep and difficult to disturb.
NUX MOSCHATA. The patient who needs this remedy confused and excessively drowsy, often following an infection, allergy, or shock. Often the patient is mentally dull, with weak memory and absentminded. There is much sleepiness associated with this remedy.
Treating the condition by the use of homeopathy, and other traditional therapies, would be far cheaper, and for the child and his family, far more rewarding than money to spend on someone with a permanent disability. But the conventional medical establishment does not want us to know about these alternative health option! Josh's mother clearly has not been told about them. And perhaps it is too easy for our government to spend our money on expensive drugs and vaccines, and then compensate damaged patients.
It is a strange, rather perverted reality in which we live!