WE WILL BE ALL FREE BY FEBRUARY!

How good a memory do you have? Can you remember back to those bad old days when we were all "locked down", unable to have a social or work life.

The official Covid-19 Narrative (provided in unison by government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media (MSM) was that Covid-19 was a killer disease; there was no medical treatment, we were all at risk; it was killing millions of people around the world: so we all had to sacrifice our lives in order to save ourselves, others; and we had to save the NHS at the same time!

After nearly a year of this blanket official Narrative it suddenly changed. Now there was hope. We could spur ourselves on. Help was at hand. This was the new message.

Daily Express
20th December 2020
"WE WILL BE FREE BY FEBRUARY"

The new Astra Zenica vaccine, with its "new winning formula" would be approved early that week. Two million jabs would be ready for the most vulnerable and elderly within a fortnight. Let me quote from this heroic front page article.

            "Britain could be free from severe Covid restrictions by February thanks to a new ‘winning formula’ vaccine. The “game-changing” Oxford AstraZeneca jabs expected to be approved as early as today, paving way for a massed vaccination blitz. Insiders say that the perfected vaccine works better than hoped and will match the best on offer. A source said: “The path to liberation is finally becoming clear".

This message was to help us through the misery of lockdown. And as has always been the case with the official narrative, everyone was singing, in unison, from the same hymn-sheet.

(And as a postscript, 3 years later, please note that the AstraZeneca vaccine has now been withdrawn from the market because of the harm it is now known to have caused).

The Sun
27th December 2020

            "The UK could be free of lockdowns by February - after Government officials drew up a list of 15million vulnerable Brits who need the vaccine first. It comes amid news that the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab could get the green light for use as early as Monday - with roll-out beginning in just a week.

So it spurred on on, the worst was over, in just a couple of months we would all be free to resume our normal lives again. As long as we all took the (now banned) AZ vaccine!

Yet by February 2021, the very time when we should have all been free, the official narrative had been forced to change. The optimism had faded. The vaccine was not working, as we had been promised.

Mail Online
4th February
Britain could vaccinate its way out of lockdown by April 7th

             "That's the latest date the UK will finish injecting all over-50s if vaccine drive keeps up pace - as ministers claim it's the key to ending restrictions and infections drop again.... MPs are pressing for a road map out of lockdown as Boris Johnson and his advisers continue to act cautiously. Schools look set to begin fully reopening on March 8 but it could be weeks or months until lockdown ends".

I could continue with this rather depressing tale; but sadly I would very quickly get bored; and in any case you know what has happened. Hope faced into reality. Our 'freedom' has been regularly postponed: this had to happen first: > then we needed two doses of the vaccine; > then the NHS still needed to be protected because from unsustainable pressures: > then we need a boaster vaccine: > then it's all the fault of those nasty anti-vaxxers: > then we now need an annual jab; > then we needed vaccine passports: > then we needed to force more people to comply: > then we need to have flu vaccines too. And so it goes on.

Whenever we listen to people who speak to us, especially when they tell us we must do something, we have to determine whether (i) are they telling the truth; (ii) do they really know what they are talking about; (iii) whether we can trust anything they are saying; (iv) or whether they are lying. We have to do this all the time but we now need to do it over the Covid-19 narrative.

The Covid-19 Narrative is the Narrative of the Pharmaceutical Industry. It might appear that the drug companies have been silent during this pandemic; but they speak through Governments, through official medical channels, and throughout the mainstream media. This is the measure of the control Big Pharma has over the Covid-19 narrative, and health messages generally.

As Marshal McLuhan once told us, "The medium is the message". And the medium through which public information is now coming is controlled by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). This is why, at any one time, the dominant message reaching the public is the same. No matter the platform, the source is the same - the CME. And anything outside the official CME narrative has to be dismissed as "misinformation", "conspiracy theory", and censored on social media.

So what is the official Narrative telling us today? Is it any more truthful, or more accurate, then the message we were being given in December 2020; or in February 2021? There are, perhaps, more important questions to ask.

• is conventional, drug-based medicine, really any closer now to having any sort of control over this virus?
• more, does it have any control over the epidemic levels of chronic diseases?
  
• and why is the official narrative still fail to tell the public about the patient damage that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to be causing?
  

Covid-19 will subside. All infectious disease subside - eventually. This is NOT through the work of vaccines, it is the through work of our innate and natural immunity. Yet, as soon as it can, the CME will claim that it was their vaccines that were triumphant. This always happens; it happened with measles, with polio, and with smallpox, and many more. This might be a lie, but the CME will state it through governments, conventional medical authorities, and the MSM, and they will repeat it often enough for most people to believe it.

Pharmaceutical medicine is not setting us free. It really has no intention of setting us free. If two vaccinations had been sufficient to set us free we would now be enjoying our freedom! If the boaster shots are capable of setting us free, they will set us free. But why should the pharmaceutical companies want to set us free, even if they were capable of doing it (and they are not). Setting us 'free' from illness and disease is not a good financial strategy for the drug companies. If they were capable of making us well, if they could cure illness and disease, we would no longer require or need their drugs. It would be bad for business. Pharmaceutical medicine wants us sick!

For them, setting us free is a really bad idea!

If we really want of liberty, we will have to look for it elsewhere!

Covid-19. The Undermining of our personal freedom and liberty by government policy

This is a proforma letter, written by a lockdown sceptic, who has given permission for other people to use it. If you feel that our personal freedom and liberty is being unnecessarily sacrificed by government reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic (for all the reasons I have argue in other blog posts here) please feel free to write to your MP, or similar.

"I would like to be succinct and to the point, so I present to you a series of questions that I want you to consider carefully.

 
1) Are you feeling comfortable about the way things are going? Any sense of disquiet? Any worries that you might just be a participant in the biggest tyranny ever enacted in a previously free, liberal, democracy?

2) Do you have any sense that the absolute powers currently being wielded under the auspices of the 1984 Public Health Act are disproportionate to the threat, bereft of any mechanism of oversight, and in complete contradiction to the actual laws of the land and legal mechanisms established over centuries?

3) Are you comfortable with the increasingly maniacal power grabs of certain individuals within Government, in particular the Health Secretary, who seemingly has no regard for the actual health of the nation or what the word “health” even means in the wider context of mental, physical, emotional and social health. In the context of humanity?

4) Are you comfortable with the persons wielding this absolute power being enthralled to a small subset of unelected and unaccountable “Scientists”, whose models reside in crystal ball territory and whose paymasters are intertwined with powerful pharmaceutical lobbies?

5) Are you comfortable with the trashing of the economy, the destruction of jobs and businesses and the wreckage of lives both young and old?

6) Are you happy for your children to live in a country where they have no automatic rights to education, no freedom of association with their friends and peers, no pleasures of leisure time to enjoy – pubs, cinemas, leisure centres, bowling alleys, theatres, live music, travel – all gone?

7) Are you comfortable with forced quarantines of the healthy in holding facilities, and criminal sanctions up to and including long prison sentences against ordinary members of the public who choose to take a holiday? Are you comfortable that such sanctions are selective, as presumably they won’t apply to certain sectors of the population such as truck drivers, airline staff, elite sportspeople and undoubtedly high worth individuals and celebrities?

8) In your heart of hearts, do you honestly believe that a virus can’t mutate if we pretend to close the borders and throw a few dissenters in jail? Can a virus respect borders? Does it bend itself to futile Government interventions cooked up in the recesses of what appears to be the increasingly deluded mind of the Health Secretary? 

9) Do you have any reservations about the sinister media fear campaign still being waged against the British people, at great expense using our own hard earned money? Can you look me in the eye and tell me that it’s all been worth it? That the measures have saved more people from Covid than they’ve killed or will kill without Covid? That laying blame on the public for the virus is a reasonable thing to do, when the Government itself has failed so completely to protect those in care homes and hospitals? 

10) Finally, have you thought about how you feel about being associated with this tyrannical Government forevermore, with being a part of it all? Have you considered that by saying nothing, questioning nothing, you are complicit?
I really hope you can sleep at night. I can’t, and my conscience is clear.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Acton)

And if you still think that the vaccines are going to get us out of this mess, well, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

Yours sincerely, etc.   "

The Three Serious Outcomes of Coronavirus COVID-19. The Threat to Social Relationships. The Destruction of the Economy & Jobs. Personal Freedom & Liberty

Conventional Veterinary Medicine culls animals and birds in the name of 'medicine' because of infections like Foot and Mouth, Swine and Avian Flu - even the culling of badgers because of bovine TB. And they call it 'treatment'. So I have wondered for some time what similar nonsense conventional medicine would come up with if humanity was ever faced with a 'killer' virus.

Now we know. Conventional medicine admitted early in the crisis that it had no treatment for Coronavirus COVIS-19. As a result, the first 'treatment' was to scare everyone about its seriousness, to create fear, to frighten us into compliance. It was likely that over 500,000 might die. 

Fear was required in order ensure that we conformed to the only treatment conventional medicine had to offer; we had to wash our hands, socially distance, go into social lockdown, and eventually to wear masks we were initially told were useless. At least we were not to be culled, we were spared the fate of animals and birds.

And fear ensured that we all conformed, and went into lockdown. The media has also conformed; until recently it has tirelessly relayed the governments medical message, and ruthlessly refused to ask the important questions this blog has been was asking for the last 7-8 months. The media consistently and unquestioningly supported the government line. For months no opposing voice was ever heard, it was never allowed to be heard. And if there was an opposing voice it was ridiculed and attacked.

Now, after some 9 months of nonsense conventional medical policies, all based on the advice of science, medical science, there is a growing realisation that life is going to have to return to 'normal'; that the current restrictions are unacceptable.

There are three areas, in particular, that now have to be addressed. And after an extensive period of obsession with an 'untreatable' virus, the mainstream media is beginning - just - to discuss them; they are being forced to do so because growing numbers of people know there is something serious wrong, not working, with conventional medical strategy. 

So why is the strong alliance between  government and the mainstream media breaking down? And why now? Why have critical voices, previously censored, begun to be heard - after all this time? The answer tells us much about the mainstream media, our so-called 'free press'. 

Fundamentally, the media will toe the dominant (government/corporate led) line until such time that this line is no long viable, can no longer be supported.

Three serious issues, the main long term consequences of the nonsense policies pursued by governments around the world, and promoted by conventional medical science, are now forcing the media to discuss them.

1. Social Life and Family Relationships

Social lockdown has produced many unpalatable and unacceptable consequences.

• Hospital visiting has been stopped, preventing close friends and relatives visiting even the most severely sick patients. People have entered hospital, suffered for days, weeks and months, without being able to see those who love and care for them, or being to benefit from the moral support they could have received from them.
• Funerals have been conducted with attendances heavily restricted to a handful of people who would otherwise have attended.
• Weddings have suffered seriously, with perhaps the doubtful advantage of having the option of postponement.
• Grandparents have been unable to see or hug their grandchildren.
• People in relationships have been unable to meet with their friends and lovers.

 An increasing number of people are now demanding to know why, they are questioning the non-sense of such a policy, they are asking why these measures have not worked.

2. Jobs and the Economy

Government policy is in the process of destroying the economy, people are losing their jobs, unemployment is rising, and likely to rise considerably further in the months to come - all as a result of government policy, based on the 'science' of conventional medicine.

For 10 years, prior to the onset of Coronavirus COVID-19 in early 2020, three Conservative-led governments have responded to the 2008 financial crisis with a policy of severe austerity. This was the correct economic policy for such times - restrict spending on education, law and order, local government, the armed forces - everything except health spending and the NHS. Then, faced with an epidemic, the conservative government  began to spend money from what it has described, dismissively, as 'the magic money tree'. After 10 years of damaging austerity the government was suddenly prepared to spend any amount of money, even silly amounts of money on 'moon missions', committing it to borrowing £billions - all because of a viral infection for which conventional medicine had no treatment, and in order to 'save the NHS' which had no treatment, and could only care for people as they died.

Simultaneously it locked down the economy. No one except essential workers were allowed into work; whole industries were closed down; staff were put on an expensive furlough scheme. Expenditure commitments increased whilst income from taxation reduced.

Yet none of this expenditure was able to stop that loss of jobs, the unemployment; and consequently the number of people who are angry, and are beginning to ask if this intentional destruction of the economy was for a good reason.

3. Personal Freedom and Liberty

If social life, and the economy, were put at risk, uprooted by coronavirus COVID-19, a third casualty soon became apparent. In order to ensure that nonsense medical policies could be introduced, and enforced, governments around the world introduced laws that now threaten personal freedom and liberty. In the UK, legislation was quickly enacted to give the government powers to control the spread of the virus, but which now seriously threatens our time honoured personal freedoms and liberty. In the UK the legislation was called the Coronavirus Act, and it was designed to 5 things:

1. to contain and slow the spread of the virus,
   
2. to ease legislative and regulatory requirements,
   
3. to enhance capacity and the flexible deployment of staff across essential services
   
4. to manage the deceased in a dignified way,
   
5. to suppose and protect the public to do the right thing, and follow public health advice.

All this seemed perfectly reasonable, understandable, acceptable; especially after most people had been scared stiff by reports of the serious nature of the infection - predictions (500,000 people might die, et al) that have never materialised. But this was legislation that would enable to government to impose strict limitations of people's freedom and liberty - even when it became clear that government policy was not working.

The Price for an Untreatable Virus

These have been the main three costs to humanity when faced with an (allegedly) killer virus. Unlike the animal world we have not been culled - like veterinary medicine has imposed on cows, pigs, poultry and badgers! But we are paying, and certainly will be paying, every price short of this.

 All for a virus that is not particularly dangerous!

• death figures - it has been calculated that 95% of those who have died have other, underlying illnesses: they have died with coronavirus, not of it.
  
• note, the dangers of the virus used to be calculated by the number of deaths; now it is being measured by the number of cases because deaths are nowhere near the levels of earlier this year.
• The total number of deaths, caused by all causes, have not been significantly higher, if at all, when compared to previous years.
  

So all this has arisen from the same common denominator:  the extraordinary inability of pharmaceutical medicine to treat an infectious disease - something that has never been discussed.

"Breaking Up With Fear and Conformity" by Tessa Lina

This lovely poem, which expresses the feelings of so many people about health and freedom during this 'pandemic', was published by Off-Guardian.com on 4th October 2020.

 Data’s rotten,
Tests are toast.
News is sullen,
Coast to coast.

Feudal darkness
Here and now!
To the masters
Peasants bow.

Facts are fiction,
Love is screen.
Gossip’s trending,
Trends are mean.

Hear, hear,
Where’s the joy?
Ask Alexa.
She’ll annoy.

This is a breakup letter. I am breaking up with fear.

Farewell, my clean and proper friends. I’ve had enough. I am not interested in your scarecrows and rules of good behavior.

I did my time inside the cage, and now I intend to breathe.

Your air is stale with gossip and anxiety. It’s suffocating. It’s low on oxygen. I can’t.

Your safe space is for crippled animals.

I feel bad for you but I don’t owe you self-abuse.

I really can’t do this anymore. I tried and tried and tried—but my fear is no more, and it’s time to say good bye. It’s not me, it’s you. The heroes you pray to insist that I betray my heart and intellect. I can’t do that. I am not a slave. You do it if you want but you have to let me be.

Perhaps I’ve never belonged in the cage of good behavior. Perhaps, I’ve always been unshackled.

This world is full of love and beauty.

This world does not belong exclusively to you or whomever has hurt you and made you proudly, complacently obedient.

You are not the owner of everyone’s descriptions of things and ways to think. My relationship with language, with the mystery of life and with the physical world around us is important to my heart, and you don’t have any say in that.

Thus, your influence over my language is over. Your convictions and hangups have nothing to do with me.

So please do what’s best for you, and I’ll do the same, with love and hope for truth. I wish you well, and I am not scared of your ghosts.

If I can be of help to you in a dignifying way that doesn’t require my self-betrayal, I am around with all good vibes. Just don’t hate me for not kneeling before your fears.

I feel like a kid again, free from adult confusions, curious about everything, attracted to freedom and aliveness, and drawn to my fellow travelers whose spirits are pure and whose minds are interesting.

Please spare me the shaming and the boring Pravda-like clichés, they won’t convince me, they will only prolong the agony of parting.

I’ve been waiting for this moment my entire life. Farewell.

We’ll meet again.

 

Tessa Lena is a Russian-born musician living in New York, you can read more of her work at her blog Tessa Fights Robots.

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

Health Freedom? Another USA hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children. Mandatory vaccination in the 'land of freedom''?

Health freedom, and patient choice, are under threat throughout the world, or at least in countries where conventional medicine has become totally dominant.

A headline in the magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (WDDTY), March 2019, stated that "Hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children". This is the policy of the Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine Clinic at John Hopkins All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, which

          "....... has given parents a 90-day notice to get their children fully vaccinated or find a different doctor. The clinic says it won't recognise the usual religious exemptions, even though it's an exclusion that is permitted under Florida state law".

Sadly, it is not the only hospital to do so, especially in the USA. The USA has always prided itself as being 'the land of freedom' so how can doctors at this hospital, or any other, justify mandatory vaccination? The medical director is quoted as saying this.

          "Our practice believes that vaccinating children and young adults is a crucial step to promoting healthy lives and futures".

That's fine. In the 'land of freedom' she is quite at liberty to hold that opinion. But she is going much further than that. She is seeking to force parents to vaccinate their children, regardless of their opinions, regardless of whether they believe that vaccines promote healthy lives and futures, or not.

This is not an isolated example of conventional medicine trying to force its will on patients. Some national governments are trying to do it. Conventional health services are doing it whenever and wherever they can. Some schools and nurseries are trying to do it too.

It is important to realise that within health services around the world these vaccinations are either free, as they are in Britain, or free through medical insurance, as in many other countries. 

• So we have here a situation where conventional medicine cannot give away free drugs and vaccines!
• A situation where parents cannot be persuaded to accept blanket medical propaganda about the safety and effectiveness of these free pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

The problem that conventional medicine has is that some parents, who are sufficiently bright or engaged, are obtaining information from sources that are not under the control of the government, national health services (dominated as they are by conventional medicine), or the mainstream media (which depends heavily on pharmaceutical advertising). Many people, for instance, are now reading about the USA's vaccine court that is regularly paying out $billions to vaccine damaged families - the same vaccines that conventional doctors tell us are safe and want to force on us - the same vaccines that the pharmaceutical industry takes no responsibility for the damage they cause - this comes from government, taxpayers money!

So there is a growing number of people who now recognise the lies and deceit that are being used to convince us that vaccination is safe. The hospital director states that 'vaccines have been "thoroughly tested" for their safety and effectiveness'.

          "Unvaccinated children are a higher risk for becoming ill with a host of preventable diseases that can have serious and sometimes devastating consequences. In addition, unvaccinated children can potentially spread a preventable disease to another child who may be too young to be vaccinated or who is immune compromised"

Most of this is untrue, certainly not a single statement is unchallengeable, using good supporting evidence. Vaccines have not been thoroughly tested. Unvaccinated children at not at higher risk They are not more likely to spread disease. The 'preventable' diseases rarely, very rarely have serious or devastating consequences. Indeed, there are many studies that have shown that it is vaccinated children that become less well, that pick up the diseases that have been vaccinated against, and who spread disease.

Conventional doctors can, of course, get away with providing this deceitful and dishonest information. Conventional medicine, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, have been practising deceitfully, dishonestly, and fraudulently for decades. As a result doctors know that they can say that their drugs are safe, in the knowledge that they will never be seriously challenged.

Yet the debate about vaccines will not go away. It is just that the debate is banned by government, not heard within national health services, and censored by the mainstream media. We are not supposed to know about it. But thankfully an increasing number of us DO know!

Yet there is another point about vaccination. There is NO illness or disease, for which children and young people can be vaccinated, that cannot be more easily, safely and effectively treated by natural medicine. Homeopathy, for instance can treat all the illnesses covered by the DPT vaccine (Dipththeria, Pertussin, Tenanus) and the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). And it can do so for any other illness for which there is a vaccination.

But this is also censored information, don't expect to hear it from your doctor, or the health service, or government, or the mainstream media. If you want to know about it click on the links to each of the diseases mentioned above, and compare conventional and homeopathic treatment.

But you are not forced to! Nor will you be forced by anyone to use natural therapy. We just don't do that. We just provide information, not propaganda. It is (or should be) up to every individual to make his or her own INFORMED choice.

And the final benefit? Once you know that conventional medicine does not have a monopoly in treatment you won't be too upset when your local hospital withholds conventional treatment from you and your children. The threat will be an empty one. They will cease to have control over you because you will be happy to use alternative medical treatment!