The Politics of Coronavirus. The thin edge of hefty wedge? Mandatory drugging, Health Freedom & Patient Choice

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

These words of Benjamin Franklin need to be heeded. The Coronavirus panic is having serious political consequences which no-one is, at present, knowingly or willingly signing up for. We may think that what is happening in this coronavirus panic arises entirely from the nature of the epidemic itself - but this is not so.

The UK Government's "Coronavirus Act 2020 - has taken draconian powers that at any other time would have been unacceptable. Indeed, as part of the response to coronavirus, many democracies around the world have taken steps to protect public health by imposing a 'State of Emergency' and this has usually resulted in an expansion of central government's executive powers, with severe limitations being placed on individual and public rights and freedoms.

The British political system is unlikely to go totally down this road. Our history of confronting and opposing political tyranny is strong, and any such measures, passing into long term enactment, would be strongly challenged and prevented. The House of Commons has already opposed such powers lasting for two years, which is what the government originally asked for, insisting they they have to be renewed every 3 months. 

But what is happening in terms of health?
The conventional medical establishment (as stated in previous blogs) is panicking. It knows it has no effective treatment; thousands of people have died with doctors powerless; and it has its reputation to defend. We have been told consistently over the last 100 years that conventional medical science was winning the war against disease. So it has been busy creating an atmosphere of panic and hysteria in society generally, with the willing support of its allies in the political and media world. 

But pharmaceutical medicine clearly has a longer-term objective, and the message supporting this is already out here in the open, and it doesn't want to admit that it has lost this one. It is an argument that can, and almost certainly will be used again by doctors. We have all heard the argument in recent weeks, probably many, if not most people have already accepted it. But not many people will yet understand the real potential consequences for health freedom.

Mandatory Vaccination
It is not this coronavirus pandemic itself that will threaten health freedom, but the arguments being made about the transmission of coronavirus - which have been repeated time and time again over recent weeks. The argument goes like this.

1. this viral infection is a threat to health - it can kill thousands
2. we have to protect ourselves and we will ask the conventional health 'experts' to do so
3. they say they have a vaccine which is the only answer; they will say it is safe and effective
4. so doctors will tell us we all need to take the vaccine - to protect ourselves
5. and additionally we all need to take the vaccine to protect other, more vulnerable people

The penultimate point leaves us with a choice - we can choose whether to take the vaccine because we believe it will protect us, or refuse to take it because we have no such confidence in either its safety or effectiveness. The final point , however, undermines this; it removes health freedom; it destroys patient choice. The need for a vaccine is not just to protect ourselves; its purpose is to protect everyone. So we must all have it, whether we want it or not. Otherwise we are putting 'vulnerable' people at risk.

It is a clever argument! It makes two important assumptions. First, that the vaccine is the solution to the problem; that the vaccine will be effective; and that it will be safe. And second, it is not an effective strategy to support and maintain our natural immunity as an alternative strategy.

And it is an argument that has been made so often in recent weeks many people will now believe that it must be correct.

Will the Strategy Work?
The conventional medical establishment is in a state of panic. The government has no policy, relying entirely (it says) on the advice of conventional medical science. The mainstream media is desperately supporting the creation of anxiety, total social and economic lockdown, and refuses to discuss anything else. There is no alternative strategy. And anyone who suggests one is not heard, but discounted and dismissed. The media always finds it difficult to challenge anything their main financial backers want them to say. 

This is not a new strategy but one the pharmaceutical industry has used for decades. For instance, a patient is given a drug, and if (s)he gets better, the drug has worked, so needs to continue taking the drug. If a patient is given a drug and (s)he does not get better it has not worked, so the drug is required in a stronger dose. Either way the drug works!

The same logic will apply to the coronavirus panic. If the epidemic settles down more quickly than feared, government/medical strategy will have worked, and we will all sit back in thankfulness and admiration. If, however, it goes on longer than expected, and kills even more people, the government will be criticised for not applying the policy earlier, or more quickly. Either way the medical strategy stands, unchallenged.

This is how the incompetent pharmaceutical medical system has always managed to convince us that it is successful! Most people believe it is competent, it knows what it is doing, regardless of outcome. Whether the epidemic is more or less lethal than thought, or continues longer than than expected, either way it can claim success.

Mandatory Vaccination
Later this year those of us who believe that conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in particular, is both ineffective and dangerous, will be faced with a dilemma. We might  want to support and maintain our immune system as we understand that this is the only way we have to protect ourselves from 'germs', and keep ourselves healthy. We will not want to be vaccinated - not least because this is antipathetic to natural immunity.

But I predict that we will have government and the mainstream media both singing from the pharmaceutical industry's song sheet, telling us all that it is our duty to be vaccinated. Any idea that our body, well maintained and supported, will offer immunity from bacteria and viruses will be summarily dismissed. Medical science knows best. It cannot be questioned. It cannot be challenged. We must all obey. 1984 has arrived, rather later than Orwell predicted.

We should all be warned.

We are going to have a fight on our hands,

if we want to maintain our health freedom.

Coronavirus COVID-19. The panic and hysteria is going to lead to Mandatory Vaccination. The Nuremberg Code, and the Hippocrtic Oath, tells us why we should resist this.

The panic over the Coronavirus COVID-19 situation begs many unasked and unanswered questions. One of them is the reason for this pandemic being escalated and exaggerated to the extent it has been, leading to such wholescale social fear and panic. Three features of the incessant government, medical and media campaign has been:

• we need to protect ourselves from the virus
• we also need to protect others
• we need a vaccine

The first is sensible, leaving the means of protection entirely a matter for individual choice.
The third is fine, for those of us who believe that vaccines are either effective, or safe.
The second has an ominous ring, with possible future repercussion for health freedom and patient choice.

• We need to wash our hands - to safeguard others.
• We need to maintain social distance - in order to safeguard others.
• We need to lockdown families, and the entire economy - in order to safeguard others.

Most people have accepted all three concepts, quite willingly. And given the obvious inability of conventional medicine to provide people with any hope of prevention, treatment, or assistance in speedy recover from the virus, this is perhaps understandable.

But what happens when there is a vaccine, perhaps in a few months time? How much pressure will be placed on everyone to go along with the second concept - we must all get vaccinated - in order to protect the vulnerable? Those of us who know the evidence, and understand that vaccines are neither effective or safe, will be expected to take the vaccine? So will it be made mandatory? Will there be and issue of 'health passports", with ongoing restrictions placed on those who refuse the vaccine?

This feature of the coronavirus campaign, the need to protect the weak and vulnerable, is a Trojan horse. People who do not want the vaccine will be pressurised into taking it. To refuse the vaccine will be described as 'selfish'. Patient choice will end. Health freedom will become a thing of the past.

The decision to take a vaccine is akin to playing a game of Russian roulette. Will you, or will you not die; suffer paralysis, or brain damage, and all the other known 'side effects' of vaccines that have been outline by the USA's CDC (Centers for Disease Control), even though it is deeply inbedded within the pharmaceutical medical establishment. Read this long, horrendous list yourself - and decide if YOU want YOUR government to force YOU to take it.

Each new vaccine is a medical experiment. Conventional medicine does not know who will be harmed of who wil be able to cope. It will be the same as other conventional medical experiment that have gone so wrong - the thousands of drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn and/or banned when doctors can no longer pretend that they were either effective, or safe.

If anyone doubts this they should look at the Patient Information Leaflets that come with each and every vaccine. They make horrific reading.

Moreover, the new 'coronavirus vaccines' that are being rushed into being. Even the inadequate 'safeguards' that medical science, and drug regulatory agencies provide, all of which have proven in the past not to be no safeguards at all, have been abandoned. So any new vaccine will be an experiment on a huge scale, akin perhaps to the Swine Flu vaccine that was developed during a similar influenza panic in 2009. The result of that vaccine was that the British government had to pay compensation of over £60 million to patients who suffered brain damage. And, of course, we were all told this vaccine was 'safe' too!

THE NUREMBERG CODE
The ten points of the Nuremberg code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments”. They are as follows:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

The Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that come with all vaccines is the official literature of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. They show that ALL vaccines are unsafe, that each and every vaccine can give rise to serious adverse health reactions. Although this 'official' evidence is routinely denied, or at least discounted by the conventional medical establishment, by most political parties, and certainly by the mainstream media, these PILs are an official record of vaccine dangers.

And in addition, the dangerousness of vaccines is demonstrated by the compensation payments that regularly and routinely have to be made to the victims of vaccination.

So vaccination programme continue to be an 'experiment', and so should come under the Nuremberg code. Many people, including myself, are not prepared to be part of this experiment; and an increasing number of people are becoming impervious to the oft-repeated claims by conventional medical spokespeople that vaccines are ‘safe’. It may be the message they want us to hear. But vaccine outcomes consistently contradicts this.

If there is a risk with any medication, the Nuremberg Code should apply. If vaccination is imposed upon any individual, or their children, against their will, it constitutes a crime against human rights, and civil rights too. The 10th point is particularly important. If a vaccine’s PIL can state that death is one of the side effects (as several do) it is a demonstrable crime that medical scientists decide to continue with the vaccine 'experiment' at all.

There is also the matter of the Hippocratic Oath, which makes a very specific demand on all doctors. First do no harm. 

This is a statement of principle that cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, apply to the widespread use of vaccines, and certainly not when there is a threat of the mandatory enforcement of vaccination.

Patient Choice. What if a Visit to the Doctor went like this?

When we are sick today, a visit to the doctor always ends in the same way. The doctor listens to our problems. We are asked questions by the doctor. We undertake some tests suggested by the doctor. The doctor diagnoses what is wrong, and writes a prescription for pharmaceutical drugs.

That is how our dominant, monopolistic, pharmaceutical-led medical system works today. We are sick. And we get pharmaceutical medical treatment - whether we like it or not! There is no health freedom.

So what would happen if our health services were operated on the principle of Health Freedom? What if Patient Choice held sway within conventional medicine. What if the concept of "no decision about me without me" was put into operation. What would a visit to the doctor be like then?

Probably much the same, at least to begin with.

• The doctor will listen to our problems. 
• ask us questions. 
• perhaps undertake some tests. 
• then the doctor will diagnose what is wrong. 

But then the doctor will provide us with information about the choices we have - we would be asked about our treatment preferences.

So let's suppose we have some sort of pain, perhaps lower back pain, or fibromyalgia, or rheumatoid arthritis, or osteoarthritis.

• The doctor will probably do what (s)he does now - offer us painkilling drugs; but now we will be shown the Patient Information Leaflet, which includes information about known drug side effects, and (s)he will explain how painkillers only dampen pain for a short time, a palliative response to the pain that will not be effective in treating our illness.

• Patient Choice. The doctor will then reach for several leaflets outlining other forms of treatment, perhaps dietary and nutritional advice, physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractor, naturopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, yoga, and many others.

• Informed Choice. We would then be asked to read the leaflets. The leaflets would be written by health professionals who are qualified in their particular therapy. On this basis we would decide which treatment we would prefer to use.

• No decision about me without me. Alongside the doctor we would then make our decision. We would have the option of working directly with the doctor with pharmaceutical medicine. Or we would ask for, and the doctor would refer us on to a naturopath, a homeopath, an acupuncturist, et al., for a course of treatment of our choice for a defined periods of time.

• Patient Outcome Assessment. At the end of an agreed period of treatment we would return to the doctor, tell him how we are, and in particular whether our pain was worse, the same, or improved. 
• On the basis of this, alongside the doctor, we would fill in a form to assess the outcome of the treatment.
• The form would then be submitted for analysis, along with millions of others, to assess the outcome of the treatment for the patient. 
• Comparative outcomes of the different treatment therapies for similar conditions would then be calculated.
• Treatment outcomes would then become part of the information provided to us at every stage of our treatment.

• Further Treatment. The outcome of the discussion would be a decision about further treatment, whether to continue with the treatment for another period, or to try another kind of medical therapy. And the process would begin again.

We have freedom of choice in most other spheres of life

- so why not in medicine too?

Health Freedom and Patient Choice. The fightback begins in USA - at last?

Jon Rappoport is reporting (14 February 2020) that the fightback against mandatory drugs is starting in the USA, that those in favour of health freedom and patient choice are beginning to get their voice heard. Vaccine revolution in one State of the union) indicates that the state is South Dakota, who are proposing new state legislation. He provides these quotations from the legislation.

               "No pubic or non-public post secondary education institutions may mandate any immunizations for school entry. A public or private post secondary education institution may request any student to submit medical records. No educational institution may use coercive means to require immunization"

                "The bill would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for 'any education institution, medical provider, or person to compel another to submit to immunization' according to the bill text."

               "No child entering public or non-public school, or a public or non-public early childhood program in this state, may be required to receive any immunization or medical procedure for enrollment or entry. The Department of Health may recommend any immunization for school entry but may not require them. No school may use any coercive means to require immunization."

And perhaps most important of all, the underlying principle of the bill.

               “Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization.”

Health freedom is an inalienable right. Dr Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the USA's Declaration of Independence, and a committed believer in, and supporter of human rights, made this prediction about health freedom in 1776.

          "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."

When most of the other 49 states are falling over each other to legislate for mandatory drugging, South Dakota are bucking the trend. It is good to know that they, at least, are standing up for the 250 year principles of the founding fathers.

In 2010, the US drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) felt able to make this damnable statement.

“There is no generalized right to bodily and physical health”. 

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they! Drug regulators around the world are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, they have become part of the conventional medical establishment. And for the last 10 years the seemingly all-powerful drug cartel has been leading the worldwide move towards mandating vaccination, forcing them on people who want nothing to do with them.

God Bless South Dakota

CBD OIL. Why does pharmaceutical medicine not want to know? Whatever happened to Patient Choice?

Medical cannabis, CBD oil, or cannabidiol, based on cannabis or marijuana, is controversial.

In the UK there are an increasing number of parents who are demanding access CBD oil through the NHS. A gruop of parents today (5 February 2020) have travelled to Westminster to lobby MP's, demanding free medical cannabis prescriptions for their children. Cannabidiol is very expensive, and the conventional medical establishment does not appear too keen on granting anyone access to it, certainly not the UK's Department of Health, and the NHS.

The makers of Cannabidiol claim that it is non-psychoactive (it doesn't act like cannabis), and make many marketing claims for CBD oil.

• it is claimed to be the answer to many illnesses, including chronic pain, diabetes, depression, anxiety, epilepsy, seizures, and autism.
• over 50% of patients using can stop taking pharmaceutical drugs.
• that it has been clinically proven in treating a wide range of health benefits
• it can regulate mood patterns and sleep cycles
• it can mitigates inflammatory response
• improve cognitive performance

So what is the row about? Why is there such disagreement? If parents want it for their children; and it has such sweeping benefits why is it not being offered to them, free on the NHS? Is it the expense? Pharmaceutical drugs which are equally expensive can be obtained on the NHS. Or is the problem that CDB oil is effective and might reduce demand for pharmaceutical drugs? The drug companies would not welcome this.

Medical cannabis was made legal in he UK in 2018, yet many parents are spending more than £1000 per month on buying it for their child. The campaigners visiting Westminster are mainly parents of severely epileptic or autistic children who have decided to take legal action to challenge the NHS's refusal or failure to prescribe it. Very few people obtain a prescription for medical cannabis, a few children and adults with rare and severe forms of epilepsy, some who have serious side effects from chemotherapy, and some people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The NHS defends this stance in a number of ways.

• There are concerns about the safety of medical cannabis (although there are no concerns about the pharmaceutical drugs currently being prescribed). 
• There has been inadequate scientific trials (the testimony of parents who have used it and found it to be transformational is not sufficient). 
• Medical cannabis is not required when there are pharmaceutical alternatives (and parents can have as many of these drugs as they need, even if parents say they do not work).
• The fact that prescribing CBD oil might damage sales of the pharmaceutical drugs currently being used is, of course, denied.

I am not entering into a discussion about any of these political/financial/medical arguments. I would rather the NHS, and these campaigning parents, discovered the advantages of (i) not using pharmaceutical medicine, and particular childhood vaccines, which have most likely caused the problems of epilepsy and autism in the first place, and (ii) the benefits of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, which would offer safer, more effective, and less expensive solutions.

However, the issue surrounding medical cannabis clearly demonstrates another important issue: Health Freedom and Patient Choice.

The Conservative government came to power in 2010 advocating patient choice. Remember the White Paper - "no decision about me without me". Whatever happened to that? It was never publicly reversed, just left on a shelf to be forgotten, to gather dust! The pharmaceutical companies certainly did not like it; perhaps they thought too many people would not want to take their drugs and vaccines. And perhaps the drug companies were too powerful for the weak, irresolute conservative politicians.

At the same time there was also a pilot policy to develop direct payments to patients: personal health budgets. This was a system where sick people (or their parents) could receive a lump sum payment from the NHS which they could then allocate to the treatment of their choice. Whatever happened to that? Perhaps the drug companies thought too many people might opt for treatment that did not include their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.

So, 10 years on, patient choice has not advanced. It has been reversed. Politicians are no longer talking about patient choice. Indeed, they are more likely to be heard advocating mandatory drugging and vaccination policies. And this is the case even though 'patient choice' and 'personal health budgets' would resolve the problem.

So whatever the rights and wrongs of medical cannabis the current row is informative. It is still the conventional medical establishment that decides who can have what treatment. The patient can either accept their decision, do without, or bankrupt themselves by paying for it themselves.

Patients have absolutely no rights in health care.

 There is no health freedom.  

"All decisions about me without me". 

The doctor knows best. His decision is final.

Pharmaceutical Medicine. It's death throes within the NHS. Perhaps Patient Choice and Homeopathy can help?

Pharmaceutical medicine within the British NHS is in it's death throes. Only patient choice, and the reintroduction of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, is likely to save it.

• Sick patients cannot get timely access to treatment anywhere in the system
• Hospital beds are full, with some sick patients laying on trolleys in corridors
• Accident & Emergency (A&E) waiting times are getting ever longer
• In most areas it is getting more difficult to get a doctors appointment
• Doctors are in short supply, many retiring early, and/or reducing their working hours because of the stress involved in the jobs
• Nurses are getting scarcer too, overworked and underpaid (nurses in Northern Ireland are on strike today)
• The routine annual winter NHS crisis is already worse this year than it was last year
• There appears to be a flu epidemic of massive proportions on the near horizon, with admissions to hospital rising by more than 40% just this week alone
• The newly elected Conservative government is making promises about huge increases in funding for the  NHS, and the recruitment of thousands more doctors and nurses (without apparently too much idea about from where they might emerge)

Anyone who has not read this blog before might be scratching their head and asking why this should be, or otherwise accepting the usual excuses - about us getting older, and the chronic under-funding over the last 10 years.

• This is all nonsense. This is the failure of an entire medical system - pharmaceutical medicine, based as it is on drugs and vaccines - which through their (largely denied) 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions' are making us increasingly sick.

• So to spend more money on more drugs and vaccines; and more doctors to dispense them; and more nurses to cope with patients who suffer not only from an illness, but from the side effects of drug treatment, do not get well but are being made sicker. This is NOT a solution.

So can I offer a solution? Offer every waiting, suffering patient - 'patient choice' - a choice of medical therapies.

Go the the people who are queuing at the GP surgeries, at hospitals, at A&E, and make them an offer - an appointment with a local homeopath, or osteopath, or naturopath, or herbalist, et al.

The NHS (dominated and controlled as it is by pharmaceutical interests) will most certainly complain that these natural therapies do not work (and other nonsense). And some patients will not want to take up the offer - which in terms of patient choice and health freedom is fine.

But many patients will welcome the opportunity to remove themselves from the queues, and to receive treatment.

The therapists are out here. Many will be able, happy, even glad to take on additional patients. For the NHS it will not only shorten the queues, it will take the pressure off doctors, nurses, and other staff. For the therapist it will be an opportunity to demonstrate how successful they can be in tackling serious illness and disease. For patients it will open their minds to new medical therapies that can be used for sickness that is not, or cannot be successfully treated with pharmaceutical medicine.

This would be a win-win situation for everyone

(with the possible exception of the pharmaceutical industry)

VACCINE INFORMATION FOR INFORMED CHOICE

          "When men differ, both sides ought equally be heard by the public, for when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an over match for the latter"
                                                                                                                                   Benjamin Franklin

The NHS tells us that all vaccines are safe. Doctors insist we should all be vaccinated, some that vaccination should be made mandatory. The government, and the mainstream media support this position, they all dismiss any ‘anti-vaccine’ information as ‘fake news’, and seek to censor debate on the issue.

Yet despite this many people, at least 10%, refuse to be vaccinated, or allow their children to be vaccinated. Why? So where do they get their information? And is this information really fake news, or news that the powerful pharmaceutical industry does not like?

Everyone should be able to accept, or refuse vaccines on the basis of all the evidence. Informed choice is not more important than in making decisions about our health. We are regularly told about the safety of vaccines. So where is the evidence that vaccines are, or can be harmful? The following links are some of the best sources.

PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLETS
Nobody should ever accept a vaccine without first reading the patient information leaflet that comes with each one. Most patients are not shown these. The documents include the known and accepted side effects of vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to supply this information; but it is worth noting that they do not have to include every known vaccine side effect, just those that have been proven beyond further doubt or question.

VACCINE INJURY AND COMPENSATION SCHEMES
Although conventional medicine says that vaccines are safe, many national governments have set up organisations whose task it is to recompense people who have been injured by these ‘safe’ vaccines.

Vaccine Damage Payment. (https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment)
The UK Government has paid out about £73 million to nearly 1000 children and adults, representing 1 in 8 claimants who were a minimum of 60% injured by a vaccine between 1979-2014. These government sponsored schemes have accepted that vaccines can cause a multitude of devastating injuries, including brain damage, seizures, deafness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and even death.

BOOKS THAT OUTLINE THE HARM CAUSED BY VACCINES
There are several books available that deal with the question of vaccine harm, and alternatives to them.

Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parents Guide:How to Make Safe, Sensible Decisions About the Risks, Benefits and Alternatives

The author, midwife, herbalist, and mother of four, Aviva Jill Romm, examines current research on vaccine safety and efficacy, and offers a sensible, balanced discussion of the pros and cons of each routine childhood vaccination. The book presents the full spectrum of options available to parents: full vaccination on a standardised or individualised schedule, selective vaccination, or no vaccinations at all. The book also suggests ways to strengthen children's immune systems and maintain optimal health and offers herbal and homeopathic remedies for childhood ailments.

Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents & Researchers

This book confirms that there is a large body of scientific evidence confirming numerous vaccine safety deficits that counteract well-publicised benefits. Several studies in this book show that mercury and aluminium in vaccines can cause neurological, immunological and developmental harm. Other studies show that childhood vaccines are associated with an increased risk of cancer, allergies, seizures, bleeding disorders, and type 1 diabetes. The peer-reviewed scientific studies in this book also show that a history of measles and mumps is protective against fatal heart attacks and strokes, that the pertussis vaccine caused virulent vaccine-resistant strains of pertussis to emerge, that chickenpox vaccines reduced cases of chickenpox but increased cases of shingles, that children have an increased risk of requiring emergency care after receiving MMR, and much more.

Vaccine Side Effects. (http://www.vaccine-side-effects.com/)
This is a freely downloadable E-Book. It seeks to balance the risks of vaccine side effects against the risks of common childhood illnesses, and help you feel confident about making the right decision for the health of your child. It provides some simple facts that will stop you being pushed into a decision before you are ready to decide for yourself. The book explains why much of the advice provided by independent health officials on the benefits of vaccines is false, outdated and makes no scientific sense. And it provides clear, simple and logical facts to help you discuss one of the most important decisions for the long term health of your child

PERSONAL STORIES OF VACCINE HARM
Vaccine damage is not a statistical problem. Each case of vaccine harm represents a personal and family tragedy. The following websites include the testimony of many people who have suffered vaccine damage.

Vaccine Injury UK (http://vaccineinjury.uk/category/witnessing-vaccine-injury/vaccine-injury-stories)
This website outlines lots of compelling personal stories about how they, or their children, have suffered from vaccine damage.

Vaccine Injury Info (https://www.vaccineinjury.info/)
Formerly a German website, written by a homeopath, the core of which are literally hundreds of reports of vaccine damage by individual sufferers, or their parents.

PATIENT SUPPORT GROUPS
There are several websites that have been set up by concerned people, many of whom have suffered from vaccine injury, their sole objective to provide information, and help other people reach their decision about vaccination.

Arnica (https://www.arnica.org.uk/)
The Arnica Network was formed in 2007 by parents concerned about the vaccination program and interested in the role of natural health, and natural immunity in disease. Within 5 few years, 75 Arnica groups were started nationwide, reflecting the strong interest in natural immunity and the need for like-minded friendship groups and support systems when making such choices for our families.

Jabs (Justice, Awareness & Basic Support). (http://www.jabs.org.uk/)
JABS, as a self-help group, neither recommends nor advises against vaccinations but we aim to promote understanding about immunisations and offer basic support to any parent whose child has a health problem after vaccination. We want comprehensive information for all parents to make an informed decision on the benefits and risks of vaccination. JABS supports free choice and full information on the real risks of vaccination and childhood diseases.

European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (https://www.efvv.eu/)
This is an alliance of member organisations, and individual members, from 25 European countries. It consists of consumer groups and pro-choice groups whose members in turn include medical professionals and scientists. Their combined memberships exceed 100,000. They call on all Europeans to stand together in a demand for a united vaccination policy based on freedom of choice and informed consent. They believe that mandatory vaccination is not only a serious risk but a violation of human rights and dignity. They demand transparency and caution as well as recognition and concern for the many vaccine-injured in Europe and beyond.

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & RESEARCH  INDICATING THE VACCINES ARE UNSAFE
There are many medical research papers that have shown that vaccines are unsafe. These are rarely publicised, largely ignored by conventional medicine and the mainstream media, but access to them can be gained through these websites.

Med Science Research (https://medscienceresearch.com/)
An online library of medical papers relating to vaccination. It states that there are thousands of scientific studies in the medical literature on the dangers of vaccines, and provides access to them.

Vaccination Information Portal (https://vaccination-information-portal.com/)
This website offers what they describe as “reliable, balanced information for parents”. It includes 223 scientific studies looking into the harm caused by vaccines, and evidence about how vaccines have caused autoimmune disease.

STRIVE. Student & Teacher Initiative for Vaccine Education. (https://striveuk.webs.com/)
This is a research group run by and for students and teachers. It was founded to provide and promote evidence-based information about vaccinations. They report on a constantly updated resource of scientific opinion, studies, reports and documentaries, that will empower students to make responsible and educated decisions about their healthcare.

WEBSITES THAT DISCUSS VACCINE SAFETY & EXPOSE VACCINE DANGERS
These are general websites that seek to discover the truth about vaccine damage, and who seek to expose the misinformation and cover-up that conventional medical establishment engages in .

Vaccine Awareness (http://vaccineriskawareness.com/)
V.A.N provides fully sourced information about vaccinations to enable parents to make a fully informed choice about their child’s vaccinations. Their aim is to support the right of every parent to give informed consent, or informed refusal, by providing all the information available. It is intended both for parents who do not want to vaccinate, and parents of vaccine damaged children,

Learn the Risk (https://www.learntherisk.org/)
Learn The Risk is a non-profit organisation in the USA whose objective is to educate people worldwide on the dangers of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines and unnecessary medical treatments, “that are literally killing us”.

Child Health Safety (https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/)
This is a British website that aims to provide reliable information on child health safety for parents who want to know about whether they should vaccinate and other health related information. It provides links to important information to assist parents cut through the often misleading, exaggerated and incorrect information given by governments and health officials.  Child Health Safety seeks to publish detailed information often not available elsewhere on issues of vaccination and child health safety.

Child Health Defense (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/)
The website of Robert F. Kennedy (Jr), whose stated aim is to provide reliable information on child health safety for parents who want to know about whether they should vaccinate, and other health related information. It provides links to information which may assist parents cut through the often misleading, exaggerated and incorrect information given by governments and health officials. Its mission statement is to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health conditions by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards so this never happens again.

Danger of Vaccines (http://dangersofvaccines.com/about-us/)
This website is written by two parents whose children were damaged by vaccines. Their stated mission is to inform the public about the many dangers of vaccines, presenting information and evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous and sometime even deadly.

Informed Consent Action Network (https://www.icandecide.org/)
Their mission statement states that “you are the authority over your health choices and those of your children. In a medical world manipulated by advertising and financial interests, true information is hard to find, and often harder to understand”. Their stated goal is to put the power of scientifically researched health information into our hands and to be bold and transparent in doing so, thereby enabling your medical decisions to come from tangible understanding, not medical coercion. They campaign for parents’ rights, to protect children, and to support science-based inquiry.

Whale (http://whale.to/vaccines.html)
This website offers access to a huge amount of material that covers every imaginable vaccine, including vaccines that have been withdrawn over the years, usually after they were found to be unsafe.

Vaxxed TV Channel (https://www.youtube.com/vaxxed)
When you get tired of reading all this information, this website provides access to a multitude of videos about vaccines, and the damage they are known to cause.

AUTISM AND THE MMR VACCINE
Put Children First (http://putchildrenfirst.org/index2.html)
This is a book on history of vaccines. Put Children First was founded by parents to let the world know that the Centers For Disease Control (CDC), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services in the USA, is covering-up the relationship between a near-tripling of vaccinations for our children in the 1990s, and the epidemic of autism and other neuro-developmental disorders that began at exactly the same time.

THE HPV VACCINE (GARDASIL, CERVARIX)
HPV vaccines are now given to young girls to prevent cervical cancer. It probably has one of the worst safety records of all vaccines, and in its relatively short history, has a record of destroying the lives of fit and healthy young children.

Time for Action. (http://timeforaction.org.uk/)
 Time for Action is a campaign group run by UK families for UK families, whose daughters have all experienced serious, life changing health problems following HPV vaccination.

Come Look. (http://comelook.org/index.html)
This Irish website carries information relevant to the government's attempt to administer the Gardasil vaccine to 12 year old schoolgirls. They state it is not their intention to challenge the manufacturer's claims of actual vaccine efficacy, instead focusing on discussing the safety assurances of the vaccine who advocate its use in mass vaccination.

S.A.N.E VAX (HPV). (https://sanevax.org/)
This website describes itself as the ‘First International HPV Vaccine Information Clearing House”. Their mission is to promote only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. They say they believe in science-based medicine, and that their primary goal is to provide the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding health and well-being.

DOCTORS WHO DO NOT THINK VACCINES ARE SAFE
Although most doctors conform to the official line, there are some doctors, and doctor’s organisations, who speak out.

Physicians for Informed Consent. (https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/about/)
Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination.

Dr Jayne Donegan. (http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/)
GP & Homoeopath, with a special interest in vaccination. Dr Donegan is currently the only doctor in the UK whose opinion on vaccination has been tested in extensive UK legal proceedings (GMC 2007) and found to be valid, based on sound research and peer reviewed medical literature ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Vaccination Decision. (http://vaccinedecision.info/)
The website of Dr Brian Boyd, the stated purpose of which is to provide information that can help make decisions about vaccines. Additional information is provided to help parents give their child the best opportunity to develop a healthy immune system, which should be the primary objective in this healthcare decision.

WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF VACCINE DAMAGE?
Conventional medicine, when not denying that vaccine can cause serious damage to health, claim that such damage is ‘rare’.

Obviously the rarity of this damage is off little assistance to those who become one of the ‘rare exceptions’ to the claimed safety of vaccines.

Yet how rare is vaccine damage? Conventional medicine assesses rarity through the number of reported cases of vaccine damage set against the number of people who are vaccinated. Yet studies show that only between 1% and 10% of drug side effects are ever reported, or recorded. This means that vaccine damage is between 10 times, and 100 times less rare than is admitted.

Reporting vaccine damage might even be lower than this, as doctors have been so busy trying to convince us that vaccines are safe, they can often be found denying that ill-health following vaccination has anything to do with the vaccine.

VACCINES AND INFORMED CHOICE
The decision to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate, should be based on the best information available to us. Conventional medicine will continue to claim that vaccines are safe, indeed essential to our health. The information contained within all the links referred to in this article suggests that this is not so.

Indeed, evidence that vaccines can cause harm can be found within conventional medical literature, for instance, in the Patient Information Leaflets, mentioned above.

Everyone should be able to accept, or refuse vaccines on the basis of ALL the evidence. Informed choice is never more important than in making decisions about our health. So it is not possible to make an informed decision on vaccines unless the evidence of vaccine harm is also fully considered, alongside the claims made by conventional medicine that they are safe.

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!

Mandatory Vaccination. A letter to my MP, the Department of Health, and the Secretary of State, Matthew Hancock

Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health in the British government, has said that he is considering imposing mandatory vaccination. You understand, of course, that measles is a very dangerous disease, killing virtually no-one these days, that there have been epidemics of the disease involving 100's of cases, and that all this devastation (sic) is caused entirely by people who refuse vaccination.

Consequently I have written to my MP to ask him to ask the health ministry some questions, which I will now share with you. This is the letter.

• I would be grateful if you would ask some questions, and request some information from the Department of Health, and especially the Secretary of State, Matthew Hancock, concerning his suggestion that mandatory vaccination should be introduced to Britain. 
• 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”.

That sets the scene. The conventional medical establishment, egged on by the pharmaceutical industry, is creating a public panic about measles (and tetanus too, according to the Times article). There are other problems within the NHS. Their drugs are too dangerous to prescribe, or they don't work. Dementia and autism, arthritis and diabetes, auto-immune disease and allergies, et al, are all running at epidemic levels. Patients cannot get an appointment with their doctors. Hospital waiting lists, and A&E waiting times are getting forever longer.

BUT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MEASLES!

• In view of this, through yourself, can I ask the department, and the Secretary of State, these 5 questions.
• 1. 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?

I am not sure what the answer will be to this question. What is certain is that a Conservative government, elected initially in 2010, has moved a long way away from its attitude to health freedom, and patient choice, in just 9 years.

• 2. 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.

I know some of the answer to these question; but in politics you don't ask questions just to get the answers. And asking questions of politicians does not mean that you always receive honest answers. This is what the Vaccine Injury website informs me.

               "The UK Government has paid out about £73million to nearly 1000 children and adults, representing 1 in 8 claimants who were minimum 60% injured by a vaccine between 1979-2014 Vaccines have been accepted by most governments to cause a multitude of devastating injuries, including brain damage, seizure disorders, deafness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) and death."

The Department of Health will probably report the statistics accurately, but it remains to be seen how honest they are prepared to be in response to a serious question about vaccines they describe as being safe - usually without caveat.

• 3. 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.

I have written blogs recently on what each of these Patient Information Leaflets reveals about their side effects and safety. See all three here - the DPT vaccines. the MMR vaccines and the HPV vaccines. The PILS do not include all the known, and certainly none of the suspected side effects. But each one is proof that these vaccines are far from being 'safe', as we are regularly told by the NHS.

• 4. 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 answer to this question is that measles declined rapidly, year by year, for over 100 years before the first vaccine was introduced. And the introduction of the vaccine made absolutely no difference to this decline. However, this statistical fact does not stop conventional medicine, the NHS, or the Department of Health claiming the measles has been all-but eradicated - by vaccines!

• 5. 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.

The answer I should receive will indicate that the numbers are quite small, and that those who contract measles have no serious repercussions from the illness. And it should inform me that both vaccinated and un-vaccinated children are involved - indicating that the vaccine is ineffective. But they will no doubt tell me about 'Herd Immunity'!

It will probably take a couple of weeks before I receive an answer to these questions. I just hope that in writing the answers it provokes some reflection, although this is doubtful. But at least the questions should indicate that there are people out here who do not believe in the safety of conventional medicine, and least of all the safety of their vaccines.

When the answer comes I will, of course, share it with you.

POSTSCRIPT
15th July 2019
You may be wondering what has happened to this letter, what the response of the Department of Health is to this blog, in my letter to my MP.

IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. There has been no response, not even an acknowledgement of the letter.

So today I have sent another letter to my MP. I will keep you informed about what happens.......


I eventually received a response from the Department a few days later, no doubt a response to my reminder! I have written another blog on this letter - and the unsatisfactory nature of the response. You can find this here. Mandatory Vaccination. An obfuscatory response from the UK's Department of Health. Read on....

Vaccine Consent. Should I vaccinate, or should I just say 'No'? Or should I ask my doctor to take responsibility for their safety?

Many people continue to face the dilemma - should I vaccinate or should I just say 'No'.

On the one hand, conventional medicine tells us that vaccines are 'entirely safe' and harm no-one, governments and national health services around the world routinely offer vaccines to us, our doctors sit in front of us, confirming that vaccines are safe, and beneficial, and necessary, and the media complies entirely with the message.

On the other hand, people continue to hear about people who have apparently suffered from vaccines, babies following the plethora of childhood vaccinations, teenagers following the HPT (Gardasil) vaccine, and adults, especially after the flu vaccine. Perhaps it is their friends, or family, or work colleagues who tell them about this. Or someone raising money for a child who has suffered a disability after receiving a vaccination. We are told, of course, that the vaccine was not the cause, and anyway these stories are rarely carried on the mainstream media.

Then people hear about vaccine injury settlements, especially in the USA with their 'Vaccine Court'. The federal government has paid out over $3 billion in awards and legal fees for families and persons that have been affected by vaccine damage between the years of 1989 and 2015. In total, 3,937 cases have resulted in the awarding of financial compensation via the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). So if vaccines are entirely safe, why is so much money spent on compensation for vaccine injury? In addition, we hear that these hefty settlements are funded by government, not by the pharmaceutical industry, who have been given 'immunity'. Why is such an arrangement with drug companies necessary? And why is tax-payer money being used for this purpose, if vaccines are entirely safe, and harm no-one as we are told?

Indemnifying conventional medical staff is becoming a significant problem in Britain too, I have written about it several times before. Our doctors are saying that unless the government pays for their indemnity insurance, they may no longer be able to practice. Why is their indemnity insurance premiums rising  to such unaffordable levels? Is it because the drugs and vaccines they are giving to their patients are causing harm? Surely not!

So perhaps some people are even relieved when, throughout the world (Italy, France, Germany, the USA, Australia, et al), mandatory vaccination is being introduced. At least it takes choice away from us, we no longer have to face the dilemma. If we want to receive child benefit, or for our child to attend a nursery, or indeed school, the government will insist the children are fully vaccinated.

But hold on. If vaccines are entirely safe, if they do not harm anyone, if they bring with them so many benefits, why should the government need to make vaccination mandatory? Should it not rather be barricading the doors of surgeries, pharmacies and hospitals against the stampede for vaccines? Why is it necessary force us to do something that is so obviously good for us?

Yet it is easier to just go along with the flow, to vaccinate, and keep our fingers crossed that our doctors, and the conventional medical establishment, are right. It is uncomfortable to say 'No', especially when we are not experts in the subject. It is difficult to withstand the pressure to vaccinate. If I say 'No', will I really be undermining 'herd immunity'? Am I placing myself, or my child, at risk of dreadful killer diseases if I don't vaccinate. Is there really any sensible alternative?

Well yes, there is! Why don't we ask our doctors to take on the responsibility. After all, it is THEY who are putting us under pressure to take THEIR vaccines. If it was anything else we were buying, a car, a washing machine, a holiday, a meal, our weekly shop, we would expect some degree of responsibility to be taken by the seller.

So, how about agreeing to vaccinate IF our doctor confirms to us, in writing, that the vaccine we are  being offered is, indeed, 'entirely safe'. After all, it only what we are told, so that should not be difficult to do, not too much to ask. I have seen many such draft consent forms. This is one of them (I am not sure of the source). It appears to do the job. What do you think about it?

Vaccination Consent Form

Names of Vaccine: .....................

I hereby give my consent to my child ..... (name)..... being vaccinated with the above vaccine subject to the following conditions:

1. That the patient information booklet which has been supplied with the vaccine is fully accurate, both as to the safety and the efficacy of the above-mentioned vaccine.

2. That the person ..... (name of doctor or nurse).... performing the vaccination, the Health Authority, the manufacturers of the above mentioned vaccine, and the Department of Health will accept full joint and several responsibility for any injury caused to my child as a result of the above mentioned 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.

....1st Parents signature......
....2nd Parents signature.....

Date: