Mandatory Vaccination. An obfuscatory response from the UK's Department of Health.

When the Secretary of State for Health said he was considering imposing mandatory vaccination in the UK (or at least in England) I decided to write to the Department of Health for clarification of its policy on this matter. The letter, and my comments about why I wrote the letter, is contained within this blog, written in May 2019.

I do not write to the government often. And doing on this occasion has shown just how futile it can be, and more importantly, how committed the UK government is to the Conventional Medical Establishment, and how beholden it is to the powerful Pharmaceutical Industry. And I am not making a party-political point - this is true of all political parties and governments of every colour.

THE RESPONSE I HAVE RECEIVED SHOWS THAT THE UK GOVERNMENT, AND THE  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HAS NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE OUTSIDE THIS CLOSED AND POWERFUL COMMUNITY. This is amply demonstrated in both the answers they provided, and the questions they did not even bother to answer! So this is a summary of my questions, and their response.

• On 4th May 2019, the Times reported that the health secretary was considering making child vaccinations compulsory and that he accused anti-jab campaigners of having “blood on their hands”. The article stated that he spoke to the Times following their investigation that found "almost 40,000 British parents have joined an online group calling for children to be left unimmunised against potentially fatal diseases such as tetanus”.

As I expected, the response to this question was the repetition of conventional medicine's mantras about 'vaccines saving lives', 'vital in protecting children and the wider community', and how serious the "vaccine preventable illnesses" are. The only mention of compulsory vaccination was this.

               ".... vaccinations are not compulsory in the UK, which operates a system of informed consent", and that "there are no compelling reasons to introduce compulsory vaccination, given the high rates of protection for the individual and the community that is currently achieved".

So as far as compulsory vaccination is concerned this is at least reassuring, but just how their 'system of informed consent' was to operate remains a concern, considering that response to my other questions clearly showed that patients are only to be allowed access to information that confirms the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

• The policy of the Conservative government in 2010 emphasised the importance of ‘Patient Choice’, with a White Paper that included the phrase “No decision about me without me”. Can I ask whether patient choice is still part of the government’s health policy? If so, how does he square mandatory vaccination with this policy? If not, what has changed since 2010 which now allows decisions to be made - about me - without me?

This question was studiously avoided! My conclusion is that if a Secretary of State for Health can suggest that compulsory vaccination is being considered, patient choice is no longer a priority.

• Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
• This scheme was introduced in 1979, and I believe it continues to this day. Can I ask how much has been paid out under this scheme for each year since 1979, to how many claimants, and also how many claims have been turned down. 
• Further, can I ask for a breakdown of the major injuries for which these compensation payments have been made, including side effects such as brain damage, seizure disorders, deafness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis, and death.

These questions were answered exactly in the way that I expected (and predicted) in my May blog! These were "one off, tax-free, lump sum payments of £120,000 to ease the burden of individuals who were severely disable as a result of a vaccination against the diseases covered by the scheme". So an admission here that vaccines do, indeed, cause harm, but one that was immediately discounts this harm as 'rare'.

Similarly, there was no explanation about how vaccine damage be acknowledged, however 'rare' these might be, and still lead to government and NHS pronouncements that vaccinations are 'safe' - usually without reservation.

The letter further said that they could not identify any particularly disabling conditions that are known to have been caused by these vaccines, because this is not a requirement of the scheme. I thought, perhaps, that this might be information that the Department of Health, with the health and safety of the public in mind, might want to know! But apparently not.

• Patient Information Leaflets (PILS)
• Can I ask the Department of Health to comment on some of the known, and presumably accepted side effects of the DPT, MMR and HPV vaccines. These are contained within the PILS of each vaccine. I have these leaflets, and I would like to know, should I see fit to mention some of the side effects outlined therein, whether the Secretary of State would consider me to have “blood on my hands?”
• Which one’s am I allowed to mention, and which one’s am I not allowed to mention? 
• Can I also ask the Department of Health whether they aware of these leaflets, and if they are, why they are not mentioned when the NHS informs the public these vaccines are safe.

In the entire response I received from the Department of Health there was no mention, whatsoever, of Patient Information Leaflets, or the serious 'side effects' they confirm are known to be caused by these vaccines.

Instead they referred me to 'The Green Book - Immunisation Against Infectious Disease', which was described as a set of national guidelines which outlines that individuals... must be given enough (?) information to enable them to make a decision before they can give consent. "This should include the process, benefits and risks of the vaccinations, including potential side effects".

Maybe. But this is NOT information that is given to patients when they are vaccinated. Moreover, there is no comment about whether these guidelines are being actively undertaken by doctors. And the 'Green Book' is not mentioned in government, departmental, NHS or media coverage of vaccines - which routinely emphasise the benefits of vaccines and exclude any mention of the known risks.

But then the Department of Health's response goes on the attack.


               ".... the Government takes the issue of deliberately spreading myths about vaccination for person gain very seriously. The Online Harms White Paper ... sets out plans to tackle this.... We work with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to explore actions to address this and a range of other online harms, including working with platforms to ensure that high-quality information about vaccination can be easily found".

So I (and you) have been warned!

So remember the the main, most significant question that I asked. Vaccines have known risks and dangers, and these are contained within official medical literature.  So

• which one's am I allowed to mention? 
• which one's am I not allowed to mention?
• which one's, if mentioned, would cause me "to have blood on my hands"?

Here, I received no guidance whatsoever. I wonder why?

• The decline of measles in the 20th century
• The department of health suggests that the introduction of the measles vaccine has been responsible for reducing the incidence and elimination of measles. Can the Department of Health provide me with the numbers of people who have been diagnosed with measles each year from 1900 to 2000. 
• And will the department point out to me when, and to what extent, the introduction of the measles vaccine can be shown to have reduced the declining incidence of measles.
• As Mr Hancock is reported by the Times to have mentioned Tetanus, can the department also provide me with statistics on the incidence of this disease between 1900 and 2000, and point out how these statistics to any significant degree after the Tetanus vaccine was introduced.

The response I received provided no such figures, and so no recognition that measles and other childhood diseases were declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines, and they have declined no faster since the vaccines were introduced.

• Reported Measles Epidemics
• The department of health, and its Secretary of State, is reporting an increased number of children who have been diagnosed with measles in recent years. Can the Department of Health provide me with statistics about the number of measles cases each of these epidemics represent, and break these cases down into those who have been vaccinated, and those who have not been vaccinated.

Again, the Department of Health provided no figures relating to measles affecting vaccinated and un-vaccinated children. Another blank! It is quite amazing how a three page letter can contain so little information.

SO I AM GOING TO WRITE A NEW LETTER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. This will have much more specific questions about what side effects I can, and cannot mention on this blog - without having "blood on my hands" (click here to see letter).

Watch this space for further obfuscation 

from our Department of Health!