In Response To Forced Vaccination and Mandatory Medication

I reserve my right to be ill.

> and I assert my right to respond to my illness, including the threat of illness, in my own way.

You are not responsible for my health; nor do I give you permission to take control of it.

> you do not control how I support my immune system.

I am not responsible for your health, nor do I seek your permission to take charge of it.

> I do not and cannot control how you look after your immune system.

I have never given you permission to take responsibility for my health.

> I do not accept that you, or the government, knows better than me.

I believe that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity.

> I am entitled to believe this, and I don't care if you disagree with me. 

You may believe that vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity.

> You may, but you do not have my permission to impose your beliefs on me.

I nurture my health through natural immunity, through diet, nutrition, exercise, and life-style.

> as I believe this is more important to my health than vaccine immunity.

I do not accept the pharmaceutical medicine has anything to offer me, or my health.

> you might think it does, and if so you, are absolutely entitled to do so.

If and when I am ill I will turn to natural medical therapies, not pharmaceutical medicine.

> this is entirely my choice, my decision; for which I take full responsibility.

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.

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

Mandatory Vaccination (DPT, MMR HPV). If the Patient Information Leafets outline their serious side effects, can they be considered to be 'safe'? And should these side effects not be mentioned when doctors tell us they are safe?

I hope that you have been following my communication with the British Department of Health about mandatory vaccination, and the safety of vaccines as evidenced in each of the Patient Information Leaflets. If not, you can look at these two blogs.

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

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

Arising from this obfuscatory response, I have now written the Department of Health another letter, repeating more succinctly the main question I am asking - about what the British government thinks I should be allowed to tell you about the safety of the MMR, DPT and HPV vaccines. This is the letter.

Dear Secretary of State
Further to my recent letter, and subsequent to your response, I can confirm that I am opposed to mandatory medicine because I do not believe that the MMR, DPT or HPV vaccines are safe.

I am aware that the Department of Health believes these vaccines are safe, and I understand, from your previous correspondence, that you consider anyone who says otherwise to be "deliberately spreading myths about vaccination for personal gain" and that the department "takes this very seriously".

This being so, and after reading the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that come with each of these vaccines, outlining their side effects, I need to ask these questions.

1. Which of the side effects, listed on each of the PIL documents, am I (or anyone else) allowed to mention without being accused by the Department as “deliberately spreading myths about vaccination”?
2. Does the Department of Health consider that the listed side effects on each of these vaccines make the vaccine ‘safe’, and that when the public is told that the vaccines are ‘safe’, these reported side effects should not be mentioned?

These PILs are, after all, official documents produced by the conventional medical establishment for patient information; but I am aware that not many parents read these documents, and no mention of them is ever made about them by spokespersons of the Department of Health, or then NHS, when speaking to the mainstream media.

I look forward to your response to these questions.

I will, of course, let you know the response to these questions as soon as I have received it. 

So carry on watching this space!

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....

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!

Measles and the MMR vaccine. Only one 'acceptable' opinion?

Press Freedom was hard won over previous centuries. It is important as it ensures that we can criticise our government, the people who govern us, and in this way maintain the freedoms we have won. And there is little doubt that the press does question and challenge our government and our politicians. This makes press freedom one of the foundations of our democracy.

But what about the Media's ability (or preparedness) to question and challenge the big, powerful, hugely wealthy and influential Corporations?  Does it provide for us the same protection from industrial conglomerates such as:

• The Petro-Chemical Industry
• The Defence and Armaments Industry
• Finance and Banking
• The Pharmaceutical Industry
• and many others?

We know that many of these powerful Corporations, and industrial conglomerations, are now much bigger than most national governments, and influential within even the larger and apparently more powerful nations, such as Britain and the USA. "Big Corp's" power and influence rests, of course, on their ability to invest (or dis-invest) in national economies, to create (or destroy) jobs, to advertise, promote and sell their products, and to make links with, and influence other powerful social and economic forces.

Even the largest independent media groups (many themselves large corporate enterprises) are not only reliant on advertising revenues, their boardrooms appear to be full of people from other powerful corporations. What this mwNA is that it is difficult for the media to challenge and question these large and powerful vested interests - without compromising their advertising revenues, and SO their viability. It is always difficult, and sometime quite foolish, to bite the hand that feeds you!

The 'epidemic' of measles in Swansea is a small, but almost perfect example of this. In the last few weeks, the mainstream media in Britain have been quite unable to provide us with anything other than what the Conventional Medical Establishment, dominated as it is by one of the most powerful corporate conglomerates of all, Big Pharma, wants us to know.

In particular, I have been watching and questioning the failure of BBC News to challenge the 'received wisdom' of the ConMed Establishment. Throughout, the BBC has been content to provide conventional medical spokespersons with a pulpit from which to express their views. Rarely, if ever, have they questioned or challenged these views

So let's examine how the BBC has been reporting this 'serious epidemic' of measles? My assessment suggests that these 7 features have dominated its coverage.

1. The Measles outbreak in Swansea is a serious health problem.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

It must really be questioned whether the numbers involved, still under 1,000 cases, really constitutes 'an epidemic', or a news story that really deserve the attention it has received. In comparison, during the first 3 weeks of 1959, there were 41,000 cases reported in England and Wales. Yet the BBC has never deviated from this alarmist description of the measles outbreak.

Nor has the BBC ever discussed how 'serious' the illness of measles really is. If it had wanted to add some balance to the hysteria generated by the NHS it might have pointed to at least two sources of information:

• The consistent statistical decline in deaths caused by measles from the mid- to late 19th century onwards. It is no longer a 'killer' disease, and this could and should have been examined.
• Conventional medical descriptions of measles prior to the introduction of the MMR vaccination. These do not describe measles in the terms currently being used. For instance, the BMJ, on 7th February 1959, published an article in which GP's expressed their views about the epidemic that year. Most agreed that measles was, at that time, a mild infection, and that they rarely had occasions to treat it with anything other than bed-rest, or an occasional antibiotic!

How times have changed! In an apparent attempt to emphasise the seriousness of the recent measles 'epidemic', the BBC has made much of the single measles-related death that was reported in the area, although since it became clear that the man concerned had more serious underlying health problems, and was actually seen by doctors shortly prior to his death, this association seems to have been quickly dropped, at least for the moment.

2. The 'epidemic' has been caused by parents not taking up the MMR vaccination in the late 1990's

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

Other than the blank and apparently definitive assertion that it is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles, there appears to be a paucity of evidence to support the allegation? And the BBC has certainly never questioned ConMed spokespersons about why they are making this link, and what evidence they have to support it.

Certainly, outbreaks of similar diseases in recent times has shown that it is the vaccinated population, and not the unvaccinated population, that has suffered from these 'epidemic' diseases, and are in general more vulnerable to illness in general.

In this, and much else, the BBC appears quite happy to parrot the conventional medical view that all would be well if only they had been able to treat people in their preferred way

3. The reason for parents not taking up the vaccine is due to ignorance, particularly based on 'misinformation' about the MMR vaccine.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

From the very beginning of BBC coverage, their reporting was happy to lay the blame for the measles outbreak by referring to Dr Andrew Wakefield, and the concerns he raised about the MMR vaccine in the late 1990's. Despite the repeated replication of his research (which have never been mentioned), and the ongoing concerns about the safety of the vaccine, the BBC have been quite content to repeat the conventional medical view that Wakefield's research as been entirely dismissed.

At no stage has the BBC examined why people are opting out of vaccines. And certainly it has never reported on the experience of many parents who, over the years, have made serious allegations about the MMR vaccine, and the serious harmful impact it has had on the health of their children.

Nor has the BBC been willing to make any reference to the many hefty compensation payments made to parents of children who have been damaged by the MMR vaccine, and to court judgements which have confirmed the association between vaccines and serious illness.

5. The MMR vaccine is effective.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned the implicit assumption of conventional medicine that the MMR vaccine if an effective treatment. Indeed, the BBC seems to have accepted this assumption without question or challenge, and has never questioned the ConMed claim that measles has declined as a direct result of the MMR vaccine.

The BBC has completely ignored the freely and readily available evidence provided by statistics, and the graphs that arise from them, that chart the decline of measles, as a 'killer' disease since the mid-19th century, and which clearly shows that since the MMR vaccine was introduced in the late 1970's, it has had no effect on the rate of this decline.

Nor have the BBC ever questioned conventional medical spokesperson about the evidence that in similar outbreaks of disease (whooping cough, mumps and measles) have affected children who have already been vaccinated against the disease.

6. The MMR vaccine is safe.

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned this assumption, and indeed it seems to refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. They have been entirely clear that there are no links between the MMR vaccine,and Autism, and seem to believe that as long as no-one is given the opportunity to discuss the evidence for this link, it will just go away!

So instead, has the BBC looked at the information that is known, and accepted by the ConMed establishment, about the 'adverse reactions' to the MMR vaccine? Merck, in its MMR package insert provides a long list of illnesses and diseases that are known to be caused by the vaccine, includes the following: pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, purpura, meningitis, and death. Yes, death!

• So, do the BBC mention this? Absolutely not! 
• Do they still recommend that we all rush off for the vaccine? Yes, without reservation. 
• Does the BBC believe they should share this information about adverse reactions with their viewers, listeners and readers so that they can make an 'informed choice'? Most certainly not! 
• Does the BBC inform us that one version of the MMR vaccine, the Urabe vaccine, was withdrawn for safety reasons in the early 1980's? Certainly not. 
• Nor do they tell us that Japan has banned one MMR vaccine for safety reasons.
• Does the BBC seek to speak to the parents of children who believe that their child has been damaged by the MMR vaccine? Of course not. 
• Have they bothered to speak to organisations like 'Informed Parent', who support these families, and seek to provide new parents with balanced information about vaccination? Of course not.
• Does the BBC inform the public of the court adjudications in the USA, Italy, and elsewhere, that have made compensation payments the the victims of this, and other vaccines? 

Not a word, not a mention of any of this.

7. Vaccination policy is good, and is the right (if not the only) health policy

This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has made it absolutely clear in recent years that it supports conventional medical treatment, and is not prepared to allow any discussion about alternatives, except when it goes out of its way to attack them. As far as the Swansea measles outbreak is concerned, there is no alternative to the MMR vaccine. The BBC has actively promoted vaccines, and regularly given information about the number of new measles cases, the special vaccine clinics that have been set up in the area, and has given an open and unchallenged platform to the ConMed spokespersons to express their opinions, freely and without question.

The BBC has provided no platform for alternative treatments. There is no platform for those people who, like myself, believe in the 'natural' immunity that arises when children are allowed contract illnesses like measles. There is no mention of parents who, like my mum and many of her generation, encouraged children to contract measles, and arranged 'measles parties' to facilitate this.

Within the BBC, it would appear, the conventional medical establishment rules supreme!

8. Should vaccination be mandatory?

This mirrors exactly questions being asked within parts of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

There can be little doubt, from the way questions are being asked by BBC journalists and presenters, notably Jeremy Paxman, that the BBC is taking up a position that favours this view. Indeed, if the BBC accepts so passively all the 7 poinra above, then it may, indeed, be considered a 'common sense' view. If they can ignore the evidence of families who have been damaged by this vaccine, if they can ignore the 'adverse reactions' admitted by the vaccine manufacturers, if they continue to accept without question what they are told by the Cnventional Medical Establishment, than mandatory vaccination might seem to be a sensible and reasonable policy.


Watching, listening to, and reading the BBC account of the measles outbreak in Swansea leaves me with little doubt that whilst Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and others question and challenge our political leaders aggressively, they fail entirely and completely to question and challenge the views and practices of the Conventional Medical Establishment. Perhaps they are not allowed to do so (?) And in fairness, they share this failing with the rest of the mainstream media in Britain!

Yet health freedom is every bit as important as political freedom. 

Alongside many other people, I refuse to allow myself to be damaged by conventional drugs and vaccines. I consider them to be both ineffective and unsafe - dangerous in fact.

Just as the BBC should reserve my right to vote in political elections as I please, they should also reserve my right to choose the medical treatments I accept, and refuse. But they do not do so.

The BBC regularly contravenes its editorial policy of fairness and impartiality in matters of health. Our news media should no more give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one form of medicine, however dominant it has become within the NHS, than it would give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one political party. I have complained about the BBC's coverage of this Swansea measles outbreak, and the response I have received makes it quite clear that the BBC does not understand, or perhaps does not want to understand, the issues raised by this sort of biased coverage.

The threat to our freedoms no longer comes exclusively from our government and our politicians. It comes also from powerful corporate conglomerates, and not least Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that their drugs and vaccines are safe. They want us to believe that only through these drugs and vaccines provide the route to good health, that nothing else works, that we should all have the 'benefits' of conventional medical treatment.

It would appear from their performance over the Swansea measles outbreak that the BBC agrees with this, and is actively promoting it.

Whether it is 85%, 90% or 95% people accepting vaccination, the failure to give them full, accurate and honest information about the dangers of their decision, is not only a dereliction of duty, it is a failure to provide them with an opportunity to make an informed decision. The BBC is guilty of this.

Whether it is 5%, 10% or 15% of people refusing vaccination, to ignore them, and to dismiss their views, is an unacceptable and negligent media response, especially from a public broadcaster. In doing this, the BBC is in breach of its editorial guidelines of impartiality.