Health Freedom: a vital principle we need to fully understand and defend with passion

Health freedom is under serious attack, mainly by the conventional medical profession, which thinks it knows best, and politicians who believe they know what we all need to protect ourselves. The Covid-19 Pandemic was, of course, the most recent and most serious attempt to undermine our right to choose how we treat ourselves when unwell. The pharmaceutical medical establishment tried to mandate (force) vaccines on people who wished to remain vaccine free.

The pandemic campaign to impose vaccines us all (when we were not ill) was tragically successful, perhaps not with those who had good reasons to support their view that they did not want the vaccine, but with those who were less certain. After all, we were all told to take the vaccine, we were not given any good reasons for refusing it. The Covid-19 narrative, repeated ad nauseam by government and mainstream media for over two years, gave us no reason to assume the vaccines were anything other than "safe and effective".

Whenever a Political Establishment wants to impose something on its citizens there is always a government willing to force it on them. The pharmaceutical industry, and powerful player in the politial establishment, wanted to force their vaccines on the entire population in order to maximise sales. They had sufficient influence and control within government, and politicians willingly gave their willing, unquestioning and active support. The mainstream media went along with it all, meekly accepting the imposition and enforcement of mass vaccination without demur.

History should teach us that this has always been so. Even in times when the political establishment was headed by war lords, or kings, or emperors, or an aristocracy, or an industrial elite, remaining “in power” has meant that the wishes of the rich and powerful had to be enacted. Today, governments around the world are dominated and controlled by immensely rich and powerful global corporations; and of these there is none more powerful as the Pharmaceutical Industry.

The Covid-19 pandemic, and the forced medication that was permitted, has demonstrated that the pharmaceutical establishment controls governments, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media. During the last 3–4 years it has been able to convince us (frighten us) that there was a pandemic, so awful, so deadly, that only the vaccines could save us, and that people just had to be forced into taking one of these untested, experimental vaccines. So as far as implementing vaccine mandates were concerned, most governments were quite prepared to put the necessary legislation into effect.

Yet the governments of the rich and powerful have their problems. There has always been a small but significant part of the population who are able to think for themselves, and recognise that what is being imposed (forced) on them is not in their best interest. Not even the strongest war lords survived forever; not even the most powerful empires and kingdoms. In time they have all fallen, usually through their own incompetence, privilege and arrogance.

Imposing drugs and vaccines seems always to have been attractive to autocracies (whether a real autocracy, or one masquerading as a democracy). Perhaps one of the earliest, and best examples of this can be seen in the history of the smallpox vaccination in the mid 19th century - click on this link to read an outline of this history, rarely told. Your will see that, as with Covid-19, smallpox was a frightening disease; people were scared; conventional medicine, even then, was arrogant enough to believe it had the solution; and the governments of the day were willing to pass the necessary legislation to enable the imposition of a vaccine mandate. 

However, as with Covid-19 vaccines, the smallpox vaccine caused so much patient harm that eventually the population rebelled against it, refused to take it, to the extent that within just a few years the first mandatory vaccine was quietly dropped (although conventional medicine did not drop the propaganda that the failed and harmful vaccine had been successful in eradicating the disease!)

Similarly, more people are now realising that the Covid-19 vaccines have caused serious patient harm. This will only increase, not least when we are all told that the much lauded Oxford University, AstraZeneca vaccine is now effectively banned around the world. People will resist again. They are already doing so; the drug companies cannot sell the vaccines as they had hoped, and their profits are falling. 

People have always, and will always resist ‘medical mandate’ imposed on them, and with good reason.

Imposing health mandates is attractive to drug companies. It enhances their profits. They have the power to influence and control politicians and governments, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media. But in promoting forced drugging it goes completely against the concept of health freedom, which has long and distinguished roots in human history. Here are just a few of the many sources.

Hippocrates Oath (460-377bce)
    “I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion”

Code of Medical Ethics
Article 36: article R4127-36 of the Public Health Code
    “The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctors must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences”.

Nuremberg Code (1947)
    “The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation, in its 1966 test, which states:
    “No one may be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment”.

Geneva Statement for Doctors (1948)
    “I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human right and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient’s health as my first concern”.

Helsinki Declaration (1996)
The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed originally in 1964 for the medical community by the World Medical Association. It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics (Wiki).

    “The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving that informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent”.

Oviedo Conventional (1997)
Article 5:
    “An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent”.

Loi Kouchner (2002)
Article 111-114:
    “Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him/her.The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person’s willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life and risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time”.

Salvetti Stop (2002)
    “No medical treatment is mandatory in the European Union: “as a non-voluntary medical treatment, mandatory vaccination is an interference with the right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
(Salvetti v Italy - ECHR decision of 9 July 2002. No 42197/98).

French Civil Code
Article 16-1
“Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body in inviolable”.

Yet governments around the world have been content to repudiate these principles and policies in pursuit of enforcing vaccine mandates on behalf of the Pharmaceutical industry.

UK Government (2012): "Shared Decision Making: Liberating the NHS: No decision about me without me"
    “Making shared decision making a reality: no decision about me without me”.

Council of Europe
Resolution 2361 (2021)
    “Advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union".
Article 731:
     “To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is no mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally”.
Article 732:
    “To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated”.

(Note. Most of this information on the principles of health freedom was put together by a source that I have since lost. Please advise if you are aware of the source. I am happy to add a full reference to it here).

Health freedom is a vitally important principle. For the future we need to recognise that powerful corporations will want to undermine it, that governments are willing to concede it, and that the mainstream media is likely to meekly acquiesce to it. The most recent example of this, the mandating of untested, experimental Covid-19 vaccines, is as invidious as anything perpetrated by the German Nazi regime in the 1930's and 1940's, and condemned at the Nuremberg trials. In both cases large numbers of people were subjected to experimental medical treatment, without their informed consent, and with the grievous suffering that resulted.

There is little doubt that it will happen again, possible in the near future. We should use the intervening time to ensure when it does more people are aware that their health freedom is a precious gift that they should treasure, and defend with some passion.

HEALTH FREEDOM, PATIENT CHOICE & THE FEAR OF FREEDOM

Mandatory drugging is gaining ground, massively boosted now by the fear that has been generated over the Covid-19 pandemic. So when patients refuse to take a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine (for whatever reason) the conventional medical establishment (aided and abetted by government, and the mainstream media, MSM) wants to force them on us. They know best! We are just foolish!

• Mandatory drugging is the anathema to health freedom and patient choice.
• Enforcing medication represents the ultimate failure of conventional medicine, the inability to convince patients of the value and safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So why is forced medication gaining ground? Why is it happening (mainly) within democracies? Indeed, why do the vast majority of patients quite willingly allow doctors to impose pharmaceutical drugs on them, even when there is known, well documented evidence that they cause patient harm and create illness? And why has mandatory drugging been allowed to gain ground in parts of the world (the USA, UK, Europe, Israel, et al) that can so often heard espousing their commitment to personal freedom and liberty?

Whilst at college I read a book by Erich Fromm, written in 1942, called "The Fear of Freedom". During the time of fascist and communist dictatorship it asked some basic questions about humanity, and its attitude towards freedom.

• does modern man really want freedom?
• or are we intrinsically afraid of it?
• is the fear of freedom the root of the 20th centuries predilection for totalitarianism?

Fromm's argument may provide a clue to why so many people accept conventional medical autocracy, including the long term absence of any serious debate about the almost complete dominance pharmaceutical medicine has within our national medical provision; and more recently, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the acceptance of horrendously damaging government health policies involving social distancing, lockdown, et al, which have led directly to the most serious, indeed disastrous social and economic breakdown. All with hardly a whimper! This is what Fromm said.

        "The rise of democracy, while setting men free, also created a society where man feels isolated from his fellows, where relationships are impersonal and where insecurity replaces a sense of belonging. This sense of isolation drives man to a devotion and submission to all-powerful organization from the state." 

Recently I was reminded of Fromm when I read this piece from the Off-Guardian by Tim Foyle, "On the psychology of the conspiracy denier". Foyle also begins by asking an important question.

• Why is it that intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? 

Foyle continues by making a series of statements, all without too much danger of contradiction; and all of which can be associated with the dominance of the conventional medical establishment, and the threat to health freedom.

• that history catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects,
• that in modern times evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound,
• that politicians lie and hide their connections,
• that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms
• that corruption surrounds us.
  

He goes on to talk about "revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice."

He then reminds us that the the mainstream media (MSM) makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. And that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. He says that government repeatedly ignores and/or tramples on the rights of the people, and actively abuses and mistreats the people.

Foyle states that none of this is controversial - and he is right. And he asks why most people refuse to acknowledge what is going on - in front of their eyes.

            "Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere. The the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

Why indeed! Foyle's analysis is certainly germane to the almost non-existant health debate, notable mainly by its absence. It explains why so many people believe what they are told by the conventional medical establishment; and why apparently 'free' people allow their governments to impose dangerous drugs and vaccine on them. He goes on to ask - where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate? And he places it at the very beginning of human experience.

            "The infant places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise".

            "... the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting".

So if the sociopaths are in full control of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, they are in control because we have never learnt to look after ourselves, we have never learnt to live our lives without being told (and preferring to be told) how to live our lives. The medical establishment stresses the importance of drugs and vaccines to our health; and most people go along with this. And as drugs are hugely profitable, pharmaceutical profits have enabled the industry to take complete control of medicine, at each and every level. Moreover, they have been able to subvert governments, and the MSM, who have willingly joined the medical establishment; and now the social media is going the same way.

So is the problem that we are afraid of health freedom? Would we rather be told what to do then to look at what we are being told, question it, and to make an informed choice? Do we prefer to believe that good health comes from a packet of pills, and that immunity from illness and disease comes only from a vaccine?

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, have a different view. Therapists tell their patients that we are each responsible for the maintenance of our health; through good diet and nutrition; through adequate exercise; through sensible life-style choices; et al. This is right because it is right! It is the reality of life. 

The problem with this approach to health is that it puts each one of us, individually, in charge of our own health. We are, after all, responsible for making the key decisions about our health. Natural medical therapies are safe and effective. They will help us when we are sick; but ultimately it is the individual who is in charge of his/her own destiny. Sadly,  it would seem that, for too many people, this is just too much responsibility.

'V" Day. Vaccines that will save the world have arrived at last. The Pandemic is over! Perhaps.

I am not announcing 'V' Day (Vaccine Day) because I need to; it has been plastered all over the mainstream media (MSM) for months - wall-to-wall coverage providing us all with one single message, repeated over and over again, controlled tightly by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME).

Informed choice no longer exists for anyone who gets their news from the MSM. Patient Choice has been neutralised because patients do not have access to the information they need. Health Freedom is the next target - enforced vaccines and mandated drugging is on the horizon. The CME is in control of us, and our health

Everything that has happened during the last 10 months has been leading to 'V' day. 

• A new virus emanating from China, probably engineered in a biotech lab (censored, we will never know much more about this). 
• A medical system that has no treatment, that can only watch as people die in their hospitals (openly admitted, but information aboutnother medical therapies has been censored).
• A medical system in panic, and a CME intent on passing on their fears to the entire population in order to ensure their compliance (censored, any information that questioned the need for panic and fear).
  
• A medical system that studiously ignored natural immunity, the importance of our immune system (censored, we have never been reminded, never been given strategies to support and strengthen or immunity, and protect us from the vaccine).
• Months of 'chasing the virus' with public health measures; washing hands; social distancing; test and trace; lockdown; and all the social and economic destruction that has resulted from this (the nonsense and the failure of the policies censored).
• The only hope we have been offered was the development of a vaccine, with rushed testing, and rushed approval (vital information that has still not been made available to the public).
  
• Gratuitous attacks on vaccine 'hesitancy', the condemnation of 'anti-vaxxers', with no right of reply (censored, any information used by anyone who questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines).

Now this Orwellian narrative is going to have to be moved on by the CME. Vaccines have arrived, and they are going to save the world. The CME must make sure the message actually happens. If the world is not saved, after everyone takes the vaccines, it would be a devastating blow to the credibility of CME, for many reasons:

• The pharmaceutical drugs industry will clearly have failed, and after the hardships of the last 10 months, it will be seen to have failed - dismally. 
• The credibility of vaccines would be exposed, it would leave the COVID-19 vaccines open to serious questioned; and in turn this would mean all vaccines would have to be questioned.
• Medical science, at least a small but dominant branch of it that has controlled government policy, would be asked to justify itself; why has it got everything about the pandemic so very wrong.
  
• Our government would be exposed as having lied to us, and criticised (terminally) for having put its entire strategy into the hands of conventional medical science, and ignoring all other voices.
• The MSM would be seen as having failed to properly inform us, and to ask relevant questions about government, and conventional medical strategy.
• Worst of all, certainly for the CME, is that more people would begin to look more seriously at natural health, and natural medicine. They would lose all trust in CME, and in particular, those parts of CME that should have better informed us - government and the MSM.
  

So we can confidently expect a different CME message about the pandemic - beginning from today onwards. Otherwise, the problem will soon become apparent: the vaccines will not be 95% effective, or anything like 95% effective. And patients will be damaged by the vaccines. What will this strategy be? Based on previous experience it will be the statistics, the reinterpretation of real life, that will change.

• The presentation and interpretation of COVID-19 statistics will change fundamentally. The horror of the daily death figures will change; now, if deaths are announced at all, they will be seen as  "only a small proportion of people who have contracted this deadly virus". It would  have been so much worse, if the vaccines had not saved us.
  
• The focus will change, from the number of deaths and hospitalisations to the survival rates. We will be told that so many people now survive the virus, and government and the MSM will neglect to tell us that it has always been so!
  
• Testing for COVID-19 cases will be relaxed; less tests, less cases found. The test itself will be made less 'sensitive', so there will be fewer 'positive' tests.
• The people who die will once more be dying from their 'underlying health conditions' rather than by COVID-19. The CME will ensure that doctors no longer attribute death to the virus on death certificates.
  
• As the number of COVID-19 cases decline (they always decline, they have always decline eventually, it has happened in the history of all viral infections) the reason for this will be attributed to the vaccines alone.
• People who are harmed by the new vaccines will be discounted and dismissed by medical science. Each case is an 'anecdote', it is not 'science'. These people died with 'underlying health conditions', and the vaccine was merely coincidence.
• Doctors will continue to insist that all vaccines are safe and effective. So when vaccine damaged patients suggests they have been harmed they will be told this is not possible, as vaccines do not cause harm. So doctors will not report adverse vaccine reactions, via the 'Yellow Card' system. The reporting system will be circumvented thereby allowing doctors to tell us that there is 'no evidence'  the vaccine causes harm.

So the new vaccines, and the CME, will have triumphed once again. Orwellian governments are never wrong. They cannot be proven wrong as they are in control of information. The world has been saved. We do owe our lives to medical science, and to the wonders of conventional medicine.

Until, of course, the next pandemic arises. Then, the CME will have no effective treatment. It will be a new virus so there will be no vaccine. We will chase the virus with the same ineffective public health policies. Hospitals will watch helplessly over dying patients. The government will destroy social and economic life again, in line with the recommendations of medical science. An we will wait, again, for medical science produces another vaccine.

We will have learnt nothing! The importance of the immune system, how to sustain and strengthen it, will be further forgotten. And on top of this, natural immunity will be undermined by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that undermine it, and so cause many of the 'underlying health conditions' from which people will die.

Of course, most of this is all prediction. So will it happen? 

I fall back on my old mantra - that the best predictor of the future performance is past performance. And the fact that CME has been using this same strategy, time and time again, for over 100 years.

COVID-19 VACCINES. A dereliction of duty to the patient.

The fast-tracked approval of COVID-19 vaccines is a dereliction of duty to patients by all sections of the conventional medical establishment (CME) in the UK. This comes as no surprise, but it needs to be said, and highlighted, for anyone who is concerned about he safety of taking the vaccine, and wants to make an informed decision.

The Drug Regulator.

The primary responsibility of the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, is to protect patients. It regularly and routinely fails in this duty. MHRA has approved a multitude of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that ultimately proved to be harmful to patient health. So it's approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is different only in the speed that it has seen fit to do it. And there can be little doubt that HMRA will be happy to approve the other vaccines with similar alacrity!

Even the EMA (the European drug regulator) believes this approval has been precipitant, although its own track record of approving harmful drugs is no better than the MHRA's. The EMA has said that it has "insufficient data" to make such a decision - although it is difficult to believe the MHRA has any more data to justify its approval.

Dr Anthony Fauci, the top vaccine advocate in the USA, made critical remarks about the speed of MHRA's approval of the vaccine. It represented a rare 'breaking of ranks' in the CME's vaccine strategy, that is, "they are super effective, entirely safe, and will 'save the world'. Clearly he spoke out of turn, and was soon brought to heel, apologising for this remarks. Perhaps his investments in the USA vaccine has been compromised.

Approval of all the vaccines was always going to happen. Long before the approval process had started, long before testing had finished, all the main COVID-19 vaccines entered into mass production mode - something the drug companies would not have even considered if there had been any chance, whatsoever, of the vaccines being properly or adequately safety checked.

So one vaccine has been approved, and others will follow quickly, routinely. Only time, and probably bitter experience, will tell how effective they will be, and how much patient harm the vaccines will cause.

The Government.

The UK's government is a fully paid-up member of the CME. Over the last 70 years it has allowed pharmaceutical medicine to become the monopoly provider of health care within the NHS; and this process has happened under Conservative, Labour and Coalition governments.

As far as Coronavirus COVID-19 is concerned, the government has found itself in a gigantic hole of its own making. It has committed itself, hook-line-sinker, to a conventional medical response; the NHS could offer no treatment; so it followed the advice of (a section) of conventional medical science to introduce public health measure, like social distancing, wearing masks, test and trace, and lockdown, all of which after 10 months have failed totally. All it's 'chase the virus'  has not only been a failure, they have been a laughable failure. The anomalies of lockdown have become ever more absurd, ever more devastating to people lives and livelihoods, and ever more devastating to the national economy. No world war could have done so much damage than the government's responsive to the pandemic.

Do hopeless naive has its policies been the government has even lost its huge majority in Parliament, saved this week only by the crass stupidity and incompetence of opposition parties, who advocate even more social distancing, and even stricter lockdown. Political myopia reigns supreme, it knows no party political barriers. None of our political leaders can see beyond the conventional medical establishment; and when you back a dead horse (or at least a very incompetent, useless horse) no one is going far!

So the UK's government is a desperate government. It has welcomed the prospect of the new vaccines with open arms. The are its only hope of salvation, the only hope of a failing government. Their backing of a failing medical system has brought it to its knees.

The Mainstream Media (MSM)

Perhaps the MSM are the most culpable of all parts of the conventional medical establishment. For 10 months they have parroted the message of pharmaceutical medicine, and the government. They have allowed little or no discussion; they have failed to ask searching questions; they have interviewed no-one other than medical 'experts' who are 'on message'; they have ignored anyone who disagrees with this dominant message; they have sought to ridicule and attack anyone who dares suggest there was an alternative approach, anyone who suggested that the policies being pursued would lead to failure.

So their joy at the approval of the new vaccines has been unbounded, equalling and surpassing the relief of the government, and the enhanced profitability of the drug companies.

Vaccines will save the world!

So the new message of the CME is as constant, insistent and ridiculous as their message about washing hands, masks, social distancing, test and trace, and lockdown. The new vaccines will save the world. And they are the only thing that will save the world. There is no problem, nothing to discuss about their safety or effectiveness. The only problem is the logistical problem of getting everyone vaccinated.

Except, of course, there are other people who have the audacity to suggest that vaccines will NOT save the world. Predictably, such views are being summarily dismissed by the CME as 'disinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory'. What is this information? What is this news? What are these theories? There is no discussion of this, there is no effort to debate opposing views. There is just an outright rejection, and the continual and insistent repetition of the information that is 'right', the news that is 'correct', and the 'theories' that are acceptable.

There are just three possible responses to this failure to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic. 

1. The majority will listen to what they are told, they will hear only one side of the argument, and (like the MSN) accept that what they are being told must be correct. They know no better. When asked to do so they will go to the vaccination point, and get vaccinated. They will believe themselves to have been 'saved'. This is, of course, if CME's message is correct. If it isn't they will think they are safe but in fact continue to be susceptible to the disease. And some will suffer the all-too-frequent patient harm that has been caused by vaccines for the last 70 years.
   
2. A sizeable and growing minority of people will listen to the standard CME message and know, based on the information and/or personal experience they have, that it is wrong. They may have knowledge and training in health. They may have an understanding of natural, as opposed to vaccine immunity. They may have personal knowledge of the harm caused to friends and family by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Some may be aware of natural medical therapies, and might even be using it for their protection from, and treatment of the virus. Others may have knowledge of the fraud and corruption that has been so prominent within the pharmaceutical industry in recent decades. And all these people, like me, will feel angry that they are ignored, ridiculed and attacked by the CME.
   
3. Then there will be people, who do not fit into either of the above categories, who notice that the COVID-19 discussion has been entirely one-dimensional, and question why this single message been been repeated, ad nauseam, for so long. They will take the time to research the situation for themselves to discover whether there a different viewpoint? What is the Barrington Declaration, and why has it not been discussed? Who are this group of medical staff in Belgium, what are they saying, and why have their views not been aired? Why is natural immunity not being discussed, and why are we not being told about how to support and strengthen our immune system to protect ourselves? Why are some countries using Homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies, in their response to the pandemic? Why are homeopaths in this country working to prevent and treat COVID-19 - and we are not being told about it?

This latter group is important, because they are destined to move from the first to the second group. They will do so in their response to the pandemic, but also to health issues more generally. And, like me, they will understand that if they can no longer believe what the MSM is saying about health, why should they believe anything we are told by MSM on any other subject?

In the long-term this will be a positive thing for natural medicine, and also for the development of personal liberty and democracy.

Yet in the short-term it is a threat. It opens up the vision of an Orwellian nightmare - a medical system dominated by financial interests that want to force treatment on us - a threat to health freedom and patient choice - a paternalistic government that is not prepared to allow us to make our own decisions about the way we want to lead our lives.

The central issue concerning these new Covid-19 vaccines is greater than their safety and effectiveness, important as these are. More important is how we, as a society, want to live. At the moment we are being manipulated by a powerful medical establishment that controls our government and the MSN. The threat is real, and we will have an important decision to make - whether we are prepared to lose of freedoms, or if we are going to fight for them.

The Censorship of Health Information. MSM offers no freedom of speech; no right of reply. Do we still have a free press?

How many people will agree to take the new COVID-19 vaccines when they become available? Estimates vary but one thing is certain, there is widespread 'hesitancy' to do so. Certainly around 10% will refuse the vaccine outright; and perhaps a further 20%, or so, will be 'reluctant' to accept them. And this so-called 'vaccine hesitancy' exists despite the wall-to-wall fear and panic that our 'free press' has generated during this coronavirus pandemic.

Vaccine hesitancy is now under serious attack. The constant and insistent message of the mainstream media (MSM) is that any opposition to vaccines, their safety or effectiveness, is the result of disinformation campaigns, fake news, and conspiracy theories. Vaccines, according to MSM's persistent message, are life savers, and there are no legitimate arguments that can be put forward to say otherwise. So within the MSM (and increasingly on social media too) no freedom of speech (or even thought), and no right of reply. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are not allowed.

On this basis, this blog is part of this disinformation campaign. It is purveying fake news and conspiracy theories. Yet no argument against pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has ever been used on this platform that is not either:

• the testimony of people who have been damaged by vaccines,
• part and parcel of government information and statistics,
• evidence that comes directly from the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

However, the purpose of this blog is not to justify my particular stance on vaccines. It is to look more closely at MSM censorship, how it is being imposed, and why. I do this in the hope that it will assist the 20% of people who are uncertain to resolve their uncertainty.

WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP BEING APPLIED?

1. Health is certainly the main area of MSM censorship; and as this blog focuses on health this will be the main focus here. The pharmaceutical industry, the conventional medical establishment, is an immensely strong and influential sector of the national economy.
   
2. Censorship is also evident in other vital industrial sectors of the economy, not least defence, and notably the sale of armaments to foreign governments. Few people will know, for example, that the UK supplies armaments to many parts of the world where there is civil strife, government repression, poverty and human misery - often caused by wars fuelled by the armaments industry. Sometimes, armaments are being sold to both side in a given conflict.
   

These two main areas in which media censorship is applied provides an important clue about the reason for this censorship. All MSM organisations are funded, and owned by, these powerful industrial elites, or people who support and profit by them. And so MSM editorial policy is controlled by them.

A FREE PRESS?

Much is said about our 'Free Press'. Unfortunately it is a fiction. Initially this term was used with regard to government control of the press; and in the main censorship is no longer the governments of western democratic countries that now control the MSM. Instead censorship is being imposed by large, rich, powerful, multi-national corporations, who are keen for us to hear their message, and wherever this is possible, only their message.

THE NATURE OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES?

No democratic government would now want to be seen controlling the MSM. So, at worst, there is usually only the lightest government control applied; for example, the pressure the conservative government is  applying to the BBC, particularly as the renewal of the BBC Charter is imminent. 

Yet government control is not necessary. National governments are usually funded and supported, behind the scenes, by large industrial corporations, largely through political donations, and the lobbying pressures they can apply. So government interests are usually shared with the MSM; they are mutually compliant; so governments can let powerful financial interests to control what we are allowed to know, and what is to be kept from us. In terms of health there are three basic aspects of MSM censorship.

1. Positive reporting on any news story that is helpful and supportive to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. So pharmaceutical companies write press releases they know will be published in full, usually without critical comment or examination. So new medical treatments are heralded as 'breakthroughs', new drugs are described as 'wonder cures', and vaccines are the only solution to all infectious diseases.
2. The absence of reporting on news that is, in whatever way, unhelpful and detrimental to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. This means that adverse drug reactions are rarely reported. The MSM do not report on serious medical scandals; or if this is not possible, the full impact of the scandal is covered up and/or discounted.
3. Alternative and natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, are ignored; except for when they are being gratuitously attacked and ridiculed. The MSM gives them no voice, there is no reporting of the treatment they can offer patients (even when conventional medicine admits it has no treatment, and patients are dying); and when subject to attack they are given no right of reply.
   

THE MECHANISMS OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP?

Every news organisation has to select the news it reports, and does not report. In doing so every MSM news editor has to be mindful of the interests of the viability of the company, and its relationship to its advertisers, its board of directors, and its shareholders. There will usually be some idea of the 'public interest' of news stories; but these are usually secondary.

So, for example, when the COVID-19 pandemic is reported, the three rules, listed above, are applied, using the following mechanisms. Many readers will recognise these strategies; but for those who don't, observe what is being done from now on in!

• The COVID-19 pandemic could not be ignored, it had to be reported. But the MSM have been careful not to emphasise, or focus on conventional medicine's lack of treatment; or the inadequacy of public health policies, such as hand washing, social distancing, and masks; or the abject and ongoing failure of lockdown policies.
• Any alternative to approved conventional medical policies are largely ignored, mostly on the basis that government policy has been based on medical science, that the science has been proven, and that it is not permitted to question this science.
• Therefore MSM users will not know that there is an alternative to the 'dominant' medical science; for instance, the Barrington Declaration has never been seriously covered; and the open letter from Belgian health authorities; will be unknown to most people.
• Therefore, MSM users will not know that several natural medical therapies have been using their treatments both to prevent, and to treat patients with COVID-19, most notably in India and Cuba.
  
• MSM discussion on all aspects of the pandemic have been, and continue to be conducted with medical experts who selected exclusively for those who support and agree with the dominant medical science. These experts are the only people invited to discuss political policy, medical treatment, and pubic health measures. What this has meant is that a succession of conventional medical experts have been put in front of the public to repeat, and then repeat again, the same political and medical message.
  
• Any medical experts who disagree, in are in any way opposed to mainstream medical opinion, policy and science are studiously ignored. They are not invited to give their opinion, their evidence for their opinion, or to argue their alternative position.
• Members of the public who are interviewed regarding their experience of government or medical policies, for instance, on lockdown, the social and economic consequences, or on vaccination, are carefully vetted. Those who get broadcast should not be too critical; and if they are critical at all they should at the end confirm that they understand, and agree in general terms with what is happening, and why the policy is being imposed.
• So anyone who has contrary, or opposed views are either not interviewed, or their interview is not used. They are given no platform on MSM. And when they seek to express and expound their views on social media the main response of government is to threaten sanctions on social media platforms to remove the content.
• Where there are completely different medical opinions, for example, from the natural medical community stressing the important of natural immunity, their views are either ignored completely, discounted or dismissed as 'disinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory'.
• If there is a problem with official policy, for instance, the futility and failure of lockdown policy, or issues about the take-up of new vaccines, more medical experts are brought in to emphasise, and re-emphasise their importance, their safety, their effectiveness, and the necessity for everyone to conform to what they are being told.
• Where there is non-compliance to government/medical policy; where people who not comply with social distancing or lockdown; where there is distress about not being able to visit sick relatives in hospital, or in residential care homes; or attend the funerals of close friends; there is no understanding about the reasons for non-conformity. Instead the MSM attacks people for their 'ignorance'; they have not remained enclosed, isolated, alone in their one bedroom flat, without a garden; they have been too close at the beach on a hot sunny day; and neighbours have reported people who have broken the rules. And these people, who have acted out of frustration, cannot defend themselves because in most cases they do not know what the 'defence' for the actions might be.
  
• Press freedom is not the only victim of what is happening in the MSM. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are also being attacked, undermined, put at risk - without these terms ever being mentioned.
• When it appears that compliance to government/medical policy is not as it should be, there is no discussion about why this is, why people have different opinions, whether they can justify what they are thinking and doing, as might be expected in a 'free' press. Instead yet more experts are introduced to reinforce the dominant message - as if this was not already ingrained in people's minds!
• so the experts are now allowed to put forward views about why it is necessary to pursue health policies that are undermining mental health, social values, and economic well-being; all without any danger of contraction.
• why people should be forced to conform, why they should be heavily fined for non-compliance with lockdown rules; all without any danger of contradiction.
  
• and if people suggest that they will refuse to have the vaccine, they are accused of succumbing to misinformation, fake news; so vaccination should be made mandatory; all without any danger of contradiction.
  

MSM censorship, their abject refusal to operate as a free press, has two main consequences

1.  Up to 70% of the population are living in a world dominated that MSM fear and panic; in the belief that 'there is no alternative', on the basis that government, medical science, and the MSM, are informing them fully and honestly about what is happening. They are not. They are unable to engage in debate because they do not believe there is a debate to be had. They cannot make an informed choice because they are not had the information they need to enable them to make a choice. So they do what they are told, they comply, the conform.
2. Up to 30% of the population watch this going on, and they recognise that censorship is happening around them.
   

• They eat their food, rich in vitamin C, and take their vitamin C supplements; and whilst doing so they question why people are not being advised to protect themselves by doing likewise.
• They sit in the sunshine, soaking up the vitamin D; and wonder why others are not being advised to do the same thing.
• They take their homeopathic remedy, they wish other people were aware of the powerful protective ability of the remedy to avoid infections.

And this 30% know the mainstream media is not telling the truth about health, certainly not the whole truth. So does the MSM tell the truth about armament sales? Or indeed about anything else?

It must be doubtful.

And the 30% have relatives, friends, and work colleagues; they talk to them on a regular basis; and they listen; and will understand; they are not hearing the truth from the 'experts'.

The NHS abandons Patient Choice. We pay for treatment. But we can only have what THEY want to give us. What does this mean for patients like Anne?

The NHS no longer wants to spend money on Homeopathy. This is not a surprise. The NHS has long been a bastion of conventional medicine, a creature of the pharmaceutical companies. If patients want treatment the NHS is set up to give it to us, and to adopt the old motor car adage, you can have any treatment you want - as long as it involves pharmaceutical drugs!

The NHS is now almost totally a pharmaceutical monopoly. Want to buy a Ford car? No, sorry, you can't do that. We don't sell them. WE (a public body funded by people like yourself) have decided that you no longer have that choice. This is the only car we sell now. Take it. Or leave it.

And that is the situation that patients who want homeopathic treatment are now faced with. We may be entitled to treatment because we are UK citizens, but the this public body, the NHS, will no longer fund the treatment of their choice.

• It's a political matter - it is about Health Freedom.
• It's a health matter - it is about Patient Choice.

But it is also a personal matter. Some people have been having homeopathic treatment for their illnesses, and if and when this treatment is stopped they will be in serious difficulty. I have been talking to several people in this situation in recent weeks, usually patients who have tried every conventional treatment available to them without any of them working. Then they discover homeopathy. It works. And a few people were fortunate enough to persuade a reluctant NHS to pay for their treatment. But now those patients are worried their treatment, the only treatment that has worked for them, will now be stopped.

Take the case of Anne - not her real name. She has talked to me about her situation. She has been using homeopathy -since she became paraplegic - for over 40 years

She initially discovered homeopathy following a bout of pneumonia when she was 31, with 3 small children. She was given antibiotics, galore, and it took her ages to recover. Eventually she consulted a homeopath, and has been having homeopathic treatment ever since. She has also had osteopathic treatment, and used herbal remedies. Despite her many health issues she does not take any pharmaceutical drugs, and she is determined that she does not want to do so.

               "It actually terrifies me to end up at the mercy of the NHS because most general hospitals don’t understand spinal cord injury.... Every day is a battle to keep skin healthy, bladder operating to the best of my ability and bowels moving at their scheduled time. It all pulls a lot out of my system and at 66 I need to focus on keeping mentally robust too."

But Anne is a determined and intelligent lady. She has obviously done a lot of work, researching her condition, and the treatments available to her. She told me that she wants to learn as much as she can about using homeopathy in order to to stay well. She has recently cured an ear infection with homeopathic remedies. As a paraplegic she has regular urinary tract infections (UTI's) but thanks to homeopathy she no longer has to use antibiotics for these. So she is delighted. She despairs when she sees her friends in the SCI (spinal cord injury) community having intravenous antibiotics for sepsis and UTI's, and spending months in bed with pressure sores, et al.

So whilst Anne is usually confident about staying well with homeopathy, alongside other natural therapies, she has some trepidation about what the future holds for her. Like all of us she is not in control of her destiny. And she worries that if she does have to go into hospital she knows she will struggle to get the treatment she wants for herself. She will be routinely denied her patient choice.

When the NHS was inaugurated in 1948 its intention was to offer the best available medicine, free at the point of need. Anne knows that any NHS treatment will be free.

• But it will not the treatment she wants. 
• It will not be the treatment she has found, from experience, to be best for her.

The NHS is now a monopoly supplier of one kind of medicine. It is dominated by pharmaceutical drug treatment. Anne does not want this, and has spent her life trying to avoid it. The NHS has now taken a decision that money should not be spent on homeopathy because (it says) there is "no evidence' that homeopathy works.

Anne is the evidence, one piece of evidence in many millions, who knows that it does.

So for Anne it is not a political matter, health freedom. It is not just a medical matter, patient choice. It is a deeply personal matter concerning her health, her future, and the treatment she receives for her condition. Ultimately it will be about how she dies.

Yet Anne is not alone in this. Anyone who goes into hospital, today or tomorrow, because of an accident, or emergency, or an acute illness, is faced with the same dilemma she is grappling with. We talk a lot about our human rights, but surely this right, health freedom, is the most important right of all.

It is Anne's right to choose the treatment she receives. Her treatment should not be dictated to her by conventional doctors who think they know best, and know everything. But unfortunately that appears to be the direction in which the NHS is going.

Medical censorship. 'Man Made Epidemic', a film about Autism, pulled from film festival

This morning I received notification that there was to be a 'world premier' of a new film 'Man Made Epidemic' taking place in London. I quickly found the trailer to the film, and watched it (please click on this link and watch the trailer, it only take 3 minutes).

The film is about Autism. It says that in the 1970's the condition affected just 1 in 5,000 children. Now it affects 1 in 50 children. The trailer did not say, as it could have done, that the disease was unknown prior to the 1940's! It goes on to look at pesticides, and then vaccines, as a potential cause of this epidemic.

Encouraged that at last such an film should be shown publicly, I looked to see where it was being shown. I discovered it was to be shown at London's East End Film Festival on 25th June. What was I doing on Saturday? But then I saw another link, 'Man Made Epidemic' pulled from London Film Festival. I went to the link, as you should, and sure enough, the film had been withdrawn. The festival director had decided to withdraw the film "after a hefty discussion on their Twitter account had arisen". We need to wonder about the nature of that 'hefty discussion', who it was with, and what pressure the director came under to censor the film!

This is, of course, the second film about vaccine safety that has been pulled from a film festival within the last few months. Earlier this year Robert de Niro bowed to presumably similar "outside pressures" and pulled the documentary 'Vaxxed' from the Tribeca Film Festival. Since then, I understand that 'Vaxxed' has gone viral in the USA. It is only to be hoped that 'Man Made Epidemic' will do likewise in Britain.

The reputation of the conventional medical establishment depends on the efficacy of vaccination as a treatment. More to the point, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry depends on us continuing to accept them, and believe that they are safe and effective. So films like this are abhorred. Conventional medicine does not want us even to consider the possibility that the 'medicines' they have been given to us for over 60 years might be unsafe, and might have led to the epidemic of autism we are experiencing.

So the pharmaceutical industry uses its wealth, its influence, and its muscle to make sure we cannot see the film.

Censorship is only necessary when an Establishment position is indefensible. If it was defensible the conventional medical establishment would surely defend it, and not seek to prevent us from seeing a film, and considering the issues raised. What this censorship tells us, better than any other evidence, is that vaccines have become indefensible. That is why this film, and Vaxxed, have been withdrawn. That is why the USA Congress have refused to debate revelations made by a top medical scientist that information was destroyed in 2004 that would have linked Autism with the MMR vaccine.

Pharmaceutical profits are threatened. And if we were allowed to know the truth about vaccines doctors would have to explain why they have been happy to give them to us for so long. And the mainstream media, including our 'public service' broadcaster, the BBC, would have to explain why they have failed to investigate, and/or refused to tell us about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines throughout all this time.

This censorship of two important films show that health freedom is under threat from the powerful vested interests of the drug companies. It shows that conventional medicine is not interested in ensuring that patients have sufficient information about prescribed drugs and vaccines in ensure they can make an 'informed choice'.

It cannot be long now before the conventional medical edifice begins to tumble around the feet of the medical establishment. The vaccines and autism link is just one that will bring it down. The damage, disease and death caused by painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, Statins, and many other pharmaceutical drugs, is a story that still has to be told and understood by the general population.

When we are told, by those brave enough to do so, we will need to find better, safer, more effective medical therapies to both maintain, and restore our health. And we will have to ask serious questions about why we have been duped by the conventional medical profession for so long.

Homeopathy in the USA. A sign of the weakness of conventional medicine?

The United States and America is where the threat to health freedom, and patient choice, is at its most extreme. In every state the conventional medical establishment is seeking to make vaccination mandatory, taking away the choice of patients.

Yet the people of the USA are great users of other medical therapies, not the least of which is homeopathy.

An important survey has recently been conducted into the usage of homeopathic medicines in the USA, and published in the most respected public health journal in the USA, 'The American Journal of Public Health'. The survey authors are from Harvard’s School of Public Health and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital, and Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, has kindly outlined some of the more salient facts arising from the survey:

• The survey noted that homeopathic studies “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals. And the control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba.”
• The survey analyzed data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey for the prevalence and patterns of usage of homeopathic medicines among U.S. adults in relation to other complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use.
• Two-thirds of homeopathy users ranked homeopathy as one of their top three CIM therapies.
• Homeopathy users who saw a professional homeopath were significantly more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being” and that it helped their health condition “a great deal” than were homeopathy users who did not see a professional homeopath.
• Previous governmental surveys in 2002 and 2007 found that homeopathy was used by 1.7% and 1.8% of American adults respectively. This new survey found that in 2012 the usage of homeopathy had grew approximately 15% to 2.1% of U.S. adults.
• The usage of homeopathic medicines in the U.S. are considerably lower than in other Western countries, such as Italy (8.2%) and Germany (14.8%).
• The survey, like dozens before it, have found that people who were more educated were more likely to use homeopathic medicines than people who were less educated.
• The most common conditions for which people sought homeopathic treatment were respiratory and ear-nose-and-throat complaints as well as musculoskeletal pain syndromes.
• The researchers concluded that “because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted”.

The study abstract can be found here.

Perhaps the growing popularity of homeopathy, alongside the growing resistance to conventional, drug and vaccine based medicine, is the primary reason for the insidious movement towards mandatory medication in the USA. The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to realise that more and more people see their drugs and vaccines as ineffective and harmful, whilst at the same time, growing numbers of people are looking for safer medical therapies. For the drug companies this combination is a threat to their business, their profits, their influence with national health care systems.

Forcing people to have their drugs and vaccines has become a survival mechanism!

Pharmaceutical companies may see this flexing of muscle as a sign of strength and vigour. Actually, it is a sign of weakness and incipient decline.

Patient Right to refuse medical treatment (in England)

Yesterday (1st December 2015) the English Court of Protection gave a judgement about a patients right to refuse medical treatment.

The case concerned a woman of 50 years old, who had been receiving kidney dialysis following a failed suicide attempt. The woman no longer wanted to have the treatment. Kings College Hospital, in London, challenged her right to refuse the treatment. In other words, they wanted the enforce treatment, regardless of whether the patient wanted it.

On BBC's Today programme this morning, Clive Coleman, their legal correspondent, quoted part of Justice McDonald's judgement. It is as follows:

          "An individual with mental capacity is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient."

Clive Coleman said that Justice McDonald went to to quote from another judgement on this matter, which is even clearer on the matter.

          "This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown, or even non-existent".

So the law in England appears to be absolutely clear. Conventional medicine cannot force treatment on patients. Treatments cannot be mandatory.

The arrogance of the conventional medical establishment is not restricted to Kings College Hospital. I have raised the issue on several occasions before, not least with moves that have been made (and are being made, especially in the USA and Australia) to make certain vaccinations mandatory. I also mentioned it when discussing the case of Ashya King.

• The conventional medical establishment wants to impose their treatments on patients.
• They do not recognise patients who refuse conventional treatment because they believe them to be ineffective and dangerous.
• Regardless of the evidence, they continue to refuse to accept that their treatment can be ineffective and dangerous, and that there are safer, more effective alternatives to what they have to offer.

So we need to be aware of English law in this matter, which is absolutely clear. We must make sure that conventional doctors, in their arrogance, do not assume that they have any rights over our bodies, our health, or the treatment we wish to have for any illness we have, or might have.

And equally important, we must be aware of any plan or attempt the conventional medical establishment, and their supporters, might have to change the law on patient choice, and health freedom.

Those living in the USA, Australia, and the other countries that are facing mandatory treatment should work towards ensuring that their law provides people with similar safeguards.

Paul Morgan. An Angry Homeopathy Denialist

I don't usually respond to anything that Homeopathy Denialist have to say on matters of health, because usually they have little to say - apart from denial and abuse!

Paul Morgan frequently responds to my tweets, and he is not usually the most abuse. But this morning I awoke to several responses, and it is interesting to outline his position - as far as I understand it, of course!

1. In response to my blog on Tetanus, which compares the homeopathic and conventional treatment of this condition. Paul's response is just per abuse.

     "Stupid, idiotic, downright dangerous. You should be ashamed for promoting such dangerous, bad advice".

Homeopathy has, of course, been treating Tetanus, safely and effectively for many years, and you will note the complete lack of any explanation about why people should not be aware of treatments that are alternative to conventional DPT vaccination, with all its known risks and dangers. There is no answer, and no answer required.

2. So on to my tweet highlighting the webpage entitled "The Eight Best Homeopathy Treatments for Psoriasis". Homeopathy has, of course, been treating Psoriasis safely and effectively for many years, and as conventional medicine has few effective treatments, and no safe treatments, it presents an alternative for those people suffering from the condition. Paul's response is just pure denial.

     "…..are all equally useless identical sugar pill placebos".

In order to say this Paul has to be in denial himself - he has to deny the experience of millions of people who have been cured of Psoriasis over the years, throughout the world, and he has to deny even the growing evidence of randomised, controlled tests that have demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are must more than 'sugar pill' or 'placebo'.

3. In response to my blog, "The Mustard Gas Experiments 1941-1942. Homeopathy works! So just ignore it!" Paul reverts to simple abuse again, but this time, abuse about a blog that contains the evidence supporting what actually happened over 70 years ago.

     "Utterly deluded nonsense".

Paul, of course, fails to explain which of the events are 'utterly deluded', and what is 'nonsense'. But this is typical of homeopathy denialists, they have little to say, little to contribute to the debate, so they just revert to denial.

4. Yet it is this response that demands most attention. Here, Paul actually does seek to make a case - to his eternal credit. It is in response to my retweeting of the dire status of Health Freedom in the USA, and some exchanges I have had recently with Americans who have seen for themselves how forcing pharmaceutical drugs on citizens is damaging the health of so many people in that country. I commented:

     "I can't believe Americans know this is happening, and aren't out on streets protesting and demanding health freedom!"

Unusually for Paul, and denialists generally, he suggests that mandatory vaccination is consistent with health freedom.

     "Vaccination gives health freedom - from preventable, dangerous, life-threatening diseases. Herd immunity civic duty".

So let's dissect his argument. It is an interesting idea that forcing people to take drugs and vaccines can actually enhance their freedom! We must suppose that people are so stupid that they will not act for themselves, in their own best interests, following a good reasoned, and fact-supported case in favour of pharmaceutical drugs. Government has to force people to protect themselves. Government know best. The individual should not be allowed to make up his or her own mind on the basis of the information they have on the subject. It is an interesting idea about the nature of freedom, and indeed democracy.

So in what way are people benefitting, what are they being freed from? How is mandatory vaccination benefitting us? It is freeing us from preventable, dangerous, life-threatening diseases. There are so many assumptions here. They are all assumptions that support the position of the pharmaceutical industry, and they can be quickly dismissed.

• Preventable? In order to argue this Paul has to ignore the growing evidence that vaccines, and other conventional drugs are not preventing these diseases, and never have done.
• Dangerous? The dangers of many of the illnesses for which there is a vaccine has had to be hyped in order to exaggerate the importance of having the vaccines. Most of them are not dangerous at all. Some of them were dangerous but are no longer dangerous (and haven't been for many decades prior to the introduction of vaccines). And it is well known that the 'adverse reactions' to pharmaceutical drugs are now more dangerous, and real, than the condition for which they have been given.
• Life-Threatening? As stated above, most of the diseases for which there is a vaccine are not dangerous, leave alone life-threatening. And the drugs and vaccines supported by Paul, and other pro-big pharma supporters, are now on their way to becoming the most important factor in causing death.

And lastly, we come to the concept of 'herd immunity', something that Paul describes as a 'civic duty'. Gosh, a civic duty!

Most people want to avoid contracting illness and disease. Most people use the conventional drugs and vaccines they are offered by their doctors, as they believe it is the only alternative. So they go to their doctor, and get the drug, or the vaccine. They do so on the basis that conventional medicine has treated them, and that they are now safe, they will not contract the disease. The problem is that many people DO contract the disease! So how is this explained?

• People who get measles, or polio, or other diseases for which they have been vaccinated, have not, in fact, contracted these diseases. It is a different disease, with a different name! The 'new' disease may have the same identical symptoms - but it is not the same disease.
• And people who contract measles after vaccination do so because other people have not been vaccinated! The whole 'herd' has to be vaccinated, otherwise even the vaccinated are at risk!

So what does 'herd immunity' mean. It means that people who have been vaccinated are not safe, because other people have not been vaccinated! It means that in order for a vaccine to work, everyone has to be vaccinated! It means that everyone has to be vaccinated in order that each individual can be safe. It is an argument for the mandatory drugging of entire populations.

So 'herd immunity' is good for pharmaceutical profits. And we are all expected to go to our doctor to have his drugs and vaccines, regardless of the known consequences of taking them. And even when we take them, and risk the harm involved in doing so, we cannot assume that we are safe, unless everyone else does the same. We have taken all the risks, but to no avail!

Some people, and a growing number of people, want to avoid the risks and dangers of conventional medical treatment, and decide instead to use medical therapies that are both more effective, and safer. It is these people that Paul dislikes so much, and is so abusive towards via Twitter. But basically, Paul, I don't give a damn! You are welcome to use any form of medicine you want to use. I will not. And I will continue to recommend to other people that there are safer and more effective medical therapies And that mandatory (forced) medication is against our health freedoms.

Our Health Freedom is being denied by our 'Free' Press

Most of us believe that the right to free speech is one of our most fundamental freedoms. When there are attempts to limit our freedom to say what we believe we become rightly indignant. Freedom of speech was hard won, and we are keen to fight for it.

The European Conventional on Human Rights has sought to protect our right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion since 1953.

Our 'free press' was certainly hard won, one of the triumphs of the struggle for democracy and personal liberty. We wanted our journalist to be free to investigate, to question, to bring to task those who ruled us. We refused to accept that our governments should restrict our right to know the facts, both sides of every story. So thousands of people suffered and died to ensure that the press was free of government control.

Yet it is no longer the government, but the big, powerful industrial and commercial corporations that now control the news media, and restricts its freedom to report. And the biggest of these conglomerates is the Pharmaceutical drugs industry.

The result is that today, there is one area of our freedom that is under severe threat. Health Freedom, the right to decide what we do, and what is done with our bodies, the right to information about medical therapies, and in particular, the right to know about the dangers and effectiveness of conventional medical drugs and vaccines.

Our mainstream media is doing all it can to ensure that its readers, listeners and viewers are not given  full information about matters concerning health and medicine.

• It will publish very little information that is even vaguely critical about conventional medical practice, even if the information points to patients being seriously harmed. 
• It will, however, readily publish any, and all information fed to them by the conventional medical establishment, particularly by the Big Pharma companies, about potential 'medical breakthroughs', prospective medical advances, and new 'miracles' drugs and vaccines.
• It will not publish any evidence or information about pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and treatments that have been found to be ineffective, or dangerous, or both. Although this evidence is being produced on a regular basis, it is rarely covered by the media. 
• It refuses to publish information about alternative medical therapies, and if it does, coverage arises from the attacks on it made by people and organisations closely connected to the conventional medical establishment.
• Any medical issue that is discussed, the call on 'experts' to give their opinion, and these experts  are invariably from the conventional medical establishment.
• Even when alternative medical therapies, are discussed the 'experts' the experts consulted are invariably conventional medics whose opinion is invariably condemnatory of alternative medicine.

What happens, for instance, if a CDC scientist who undertook research in 2004 to ascertain whether there was a link between Autism and the MMR vaccine admitted that important evidence that supported such a link was intentionally omitted? Would that admission be a matter of public concern? Would we be entitled to be told this, especially when during the following 10 years the conventional medical establishment insisted, on the basis of that research, that there is no such link?

The magazine, 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), in its editorial in March 2015, gave this evidence.

           "In all its literature to parents, the Department of Health does not publish one word of information about potential side effects, or lack of efficacy of any vaccine, even though this material is freely available in other countries".

          "In the US, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  the major government agency charged with studying vaccines, has consistently buried unfavourable data about the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism by massaging the data".

          "When a CDC whistleblower scientist recently blew the story about the CDC burying these data - a scandal of Watergate proportions - not one major paper in the US or UK was willing to carry the story".

If you want to know more about this situation, go to WH Smiths and buy a copy of the WDDTY magazine. But no! You cannot do that! This 'champion of the small press' will not carry the magazine as a group supported and funded by Big Pharma companies, staged a campaign protesting about it.

The result is that people are not being properly informed about health matters. Our 'Free Press' is failing in its duties to its readers, listeners and viewers. It allows itself to be controlled by the conventional medical establishment.

As a result, patients cannot make an informed choice about what they should do to maintain their health, of what treatment to choose when they become ill. We are not given access to all the information - about conventional medicine, and about the alternatives to it.

To Vaccinate - Or Not to Vaccinate? A Simple Suggestion?

Many parents face the dilemma whether to vaccinate their children, especially when faced with the pressure that conventional doctors, and the mainstream media, place on us to do so.

One solution that is offered is to agree to vaccination, but on the condition that the doctor signs an undertaking, a Vaccine Consent form, written something like this....

Vaccine Consent Form

Child's Name…………..

I give my consent for my child to be vaccinated with the vaccine(s) subject to the following conditions:

1. That the information which has been supplied is fully accurate both as to the safety and the efficacy of the vaccines.

2. That the doctor or nurse performing the vaccine, the Health Authority, the manufacturer of the vaccines, and the Department of Health will accept full joint and several responsibility for any injury caused to my child as a result of the vaccine being administered.

3. That, in the event of any such injury being caused, my child will receive full compensation, assessed in accordance with the normal principles of English Tort Law.

If these conditions are not acceptable, the vaccination should not take place

Tempted? On the surface the idea of a consent form is an interesting idea. But unfortunately they are  fatally flawed as the conventional medical establishment has demonstrated that it is adept at avoiding all these provisions.

1. The conventional medical establishment is already obliged to give us full and accurate information on the safety and efficiency of vaccines, but it has never done so.

• we are told that vaccines are safe when they are not, and any evidence supporting their dangers are dismissed, discounted, or not acted upon.
• the benefits and effectiveness of the vaccines are always heavily hyped.
• the dangers of the vaccine are discounted.

2. The conventional medical establishment is likely to deny that the vaccine caused any injury to you, or your child.

• vaccine damage is regularly and routinely denied.
• vaccine damage can always be blamed on something else.
• in order for us to place responsibility then requires us to prove the link, against the massed forces of government, the NHS, Big Pharma, et al!

3. It has been regularly proven to be very difficult to get matters of vaccine, or indeed drug damage to the courts, particularly in Britain. In many cases, the Big Pharma companies have already negotiated with governments to win 'immunity from prosecution'.

And the conventional medical establishment is entirely used to holding on to this position regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

The only way to be safe from the harm, the 'disease-inducing-effects' of conventional drugs and vaccines is to say "No", firmly and decisively.

More and more people are doing this, which is one of the main reasons for moves, particularly in the USA and Australia, to make vaccination mandatory on everyone, and accordingly to infringe our health freedom. 

It is time for everyone to stand up to what is rapidly becoming the conventional medical mafia!

Health Freedom in Britain. Mary Kidson

The threat to our basic human freedoms is most pronounced in the sphere of health, where the conventional medical establishment is trying to impose their drugs and vaccines on everyone, regardless of whether they want them or not. I wrote about it only a few days ago in a blog entitled "Health Freedom, Patient Choice. Why does our media not discuss this issue?

This article demonstrated that the threat to Health Freedom was a world-wide phenomina, but that concern focused particularly on what was happening in the USA. Yet the case of Mary Kidson demonstrates that conventional medicine is quite willing to ride rough-shod of our freedoms in this country.

Mary's story can be simply stated, and what has happened to her and her daughter can be found via a web search. There was an excellent feature on her case on Channel 4 News last night (18th February 2015) by Ciaran Jenkins.

• Mary felt that her teenage daughter had a health issue. Although 14 years old she had not reached puberty, and she was constantly and chronically tired.
• Her doctors disagreed, and told her that there was nothing wrong with her.
• Mary disagreed, and did an internet search, where she found a Belgium doctor, who thought she had Chronic Fatigue, and recommended hormonal treatments.
• The doctors accused Mary of inventing her daughter's problems, and told her that she did not need hormonal treatment, and was poisoning her. She was charged on 3 counts of 'unlawfully and maliciously administering drugs, endangering life, and inflicting grievous bodily harm'.
• The Belgium doctor, Dr Thierry Hertoghe, who appeared on the Channel 4 feature, said that he was quite amazed that the matter was escalated, and the matter reached the courts. He said that in Europe "this could only happen in the UK". At the time he described the situation as a mess, and urged reform to give people the right to choose their doctor without fear of prosecution.
• On 5th March 2013, Mary's daughter was removed from her, and placed in local authority foster care.
• When Mary sought to keep in touch with her she was arrested and spent the next 6 months in prison. 
• Mary Kidson was tried, and cleared by a jury after a three-week trial at Worcester Crown Court in October 2014.
• Despite this, her daughter, now 16 years old, remains in local authority care!

Although there has been media coverage, both at local and national level on this situation, the Health Freedom aspects of the case have not been sufficiently highlighted. What we have here is a mother who is concerned about her daughter's health, who sought other opinions when her local NHS doctors told her there was not problem.

Was Mary Kidson expected just to accept this?

Was disagreeing with the opinions of NHS doctors, and eliciting a second opinion, sufficient grounds for removing her daughter from her care? Was it sufficient to insist that she had no contact with her daughter? Was it sufficient to throw the mother into prison?

The conventional medical establishment in Britain clearly thought that it was! In their arrogance, they insisted not only that they were right, and that the mother was wrong, but that solely based on their interpretation of the evidence, the daughter should be moved from her care, and the mother placed on remand in prison.

This situation is not unprecedented in Britain. I have commented, in another blog, about the case of Ashya King, whose parents found themselves at the centre of an international manhunt when they  removed him from Southampton General Hospital because they believed NHS treatment would have left the five-year-old deaf, blind and brain damaged. I said this in my blog about Ashya's case.

          "So this situation can and will happen again, unless and until we begin challenge the arrogance of the conventional medical profession, and the monopolistic ambitions of the Big Pharma drug companies. We can be certain that they will continue to insist that we all take their dangerous drugs and vaccines."

The medical profession appears to be alone amongst professions in believing that they have a monopoly of understanding and insight into the issues that affect our lives. Teachers don't do it. The police don't do it. Social work staff don't do it. But our doctors do, regularly, and there appears to be a reluctance to challenge their 'expertise'. Certainly, the mainstream media generally conforms to conventional medical opinions. So, in these cases, did social workers, the police, and the courts.

Even 'Liberty' turns a blind eye to this medical arrogance, which some people have described as 'medical fascism'! The organisation claims to champion our human rights. On their website, Shami Shakrabarti is quoted as saying, 

          "Liberty campaigns for civil liberties and human rights in the UK. Our members have been holding the powerful to account, changing the law and making the news for 80 years

But not, it would appear, if our civil liberties, and human rights, concerns our ability to choose our own medical treatment, and to refuse treatments the NHS tells us that we need!

All of us have a responsibility to stand firm against the conventional medical establishment. If we do not do so, and soon, mandatory vaccines and drugs will soon be part of our reality. And many of us will find ourselves incarcerated because we believe we have a right to 'Patient Choice'.

Incidentally, all the major political parties in Britain support the concept of 'Patient Choice' in medicine. Perhaps they all need to make it a reality in this country!

Health Freedom, Patient Choice. Why does our media not discuss this issue?

Thomas Jefferson once wrote this about Health Freedom. 

          "If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny".

So did he foresee, over 200 years ago, what is now happening today, throughout the world?

Did he foresee the pharmaceutical medical establishment set on imposing drugs and vaccines on us, whether we want them or not?

Most people will assume that, as patients, we are able to freely choose what treatment we accept, and what treatment we decline?

Most people may assume that the conventional medical establishment respects our rights to Health Freedom, and to Patient Choice, and are interested only in our health and well-being.

But is health freedom actually and seriously under threat? And is it under threat, most of all, in the USA, the land of freedom, the country Thomas Jefferson did so much to establish?

Below I am attaching a number of articles about Health Freedom, 

and the threats that now exist to Patient Choice.
These are not isolated examples of forced medication.
It is happening throughout the world.

Medical Mafia calling for gunpoint quarantines of citizens who refuse vaccinations.

Parent get $800k over warrantless search and removal of homeschool kids who were not vaccinated.

National media wages psychological terror campaign against Americans to set stage for government destruction of medical choice.

You won't believe which big-name groups are opposed to flu vaccine mandates

Is mandatory pediatric chemo institutionalized child abuse?

Forcing chemo on a 17-year old is deadly, research reveals.

Doctors who question vaccination are being forced out of medicine.

Vaccine pusher trying to revoke all religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination.

Back to school vaccine. Know the risks and failures

Changes need for US vaccine policy to protect human and civil rights

Canadian parents outraged after school official vaccinate their children without consent.

New petition announced to close 2 loopholes allowing forced medication and quarantine.

Australia. Health Freedom outlawed. Health Fascism warning. A taste of future for citizens of other nations?

New South Wales government seeks unprecedented power to censor and punish health activists and practitioners.

Bloomberg unleashes mandatory vaccination of children.

HPV Vaccine debate. Don't ask! Don't tell!

Children in danger as an easy target for forced medication

Children taken away from parents to receive forced vaccinations.

And there are many, many more articles on the internet outlining the attempt of the conventional medical establishment, led by the Pharmaceutical industry, to force us to accept their treatments.

Yet, our mainstream media, quick enough to protect their own freedom, is steadfastly refusing to engage in this important health debate. 

They would rather, it would seem, allow conventional medicine to have an exclusive right to our bodies, and dominate the medical debate. And because conventional doctors believe that 'they know best' what is 'right for us', they insist that all drugs and vaccines are safe, and that we should all be taking them.

The silence of the so-called 'Free Press' demonstrates not only that they have been siding with the powerful conventional medical establishment, but also willing to stand to one side whilst our health freedoms are taken away from us.

SO MUCH FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!