Mandatory vaccination or Forced Drugging. Is it happening?

Mandatory vaccination or forced drugging is something people around the world are now facing.

I have had several conversations recently with people who told me that there was no mandating of vaccines, or forced drugging. Their reasoning was that no-one was being forcibly held down and injected. This kind of semantic obfuscation has become typical of what we are being told by doctors and politicians, and the rest of the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). 

No politician (within the democratic world) is likely to admit to physically forcing vaccination on people: but politicians are seeking to ensure that non-compliance with vaccination will lead to losing their employment, and severe restrictions of social life. According these these 'double-speaking' politicians, this does not constitute mandating vaccines, as this video (from New Zealand) demonstrates (click here, https://www.facebook.com/raewyn.howes/videos/414242080260286, for as long as it remains uncensored on Facehook). Basically, the video shows New Zealand politicians saying there will be no mandating of vaccines, followed by government statements mandating them, and individuals whose jobs and livelihoods have been threatened!

This is typical of what is happening at the moment - politicians following policies that enforce drugging but having to deny it because it might be unpopular.

This is not the first time that the CME has tried to force drugs and vaccines on us. I have written about two of these occasions recently, the mandating of the smallpox vaccination, and the mandating of the polio vaccines. Both ended badly, not because of the objections of 'democratic' politicians, but in both cases the vaccines were so harmful they were ultimately rejected by the people.

I expect this will be the outcome of the mandating of Covid-19 vaccines - but unfortunately not until they have continued to cause untold patient harm, or before sufficient numbers of people realise how dangerous the vaccines are.

Politicians, and doctors around the world are being led by the nose by the pharmaceutical companies, which stand to profit enormously from forcing these vaccines on unwilling people. Both politicians and doctors are now part and parcel of the CME, entirely willing to be their bidding. And they are enforcing vaccines that have NOT been fully tested, have been 'approved' for emergency use only, and patients have not been fully informed about the serious adverse vaccines reactions that have been reported.

Moreover, politicians (and doctors) are willing to do so quite regardless of many political and medical principles that have been adopted over the years. I list some of them here.

1. Hippocrates oath (-460 // 377): "I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion."

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

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

4. Geneva statement for doctors (1948): "I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human rights and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient's health as my first concern."

5. Helsinki Declaration (1996) signed by 45 countries:
Article 25: "The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving their informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent.′′

 6) Oviedo Convention (1997) signed by 29 countries:
Article 5: "An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent."

7. Loi Kouchner (March 4, 2002):
Article 111-4: "Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him / her. The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person's willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life at risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time."

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

9. French Civil Code:
Article 16-1: ′′ Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body is inviolable."

10. Council of Europe resolution 2361 (28 January 2021): advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union:
    Article 731:  "To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally."
    Article 732:  "To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated.′′

(A word of apology here. I have used a source that put this information together that I can no longer find. If/when I can reference this source I will be delighted to do so).

On the grounds of these political and medical principles alone, mandatory or forced drugging should not be carried out. The fact that doctors are willing to do so today, aided, abetted and supported by the CME; and that politicians of every political persuasion, not least the 'liberal' left, are prepared to sanction it; is utterly and completely disgraceful.

Forcing people to accept pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines does not require the forcible holding down of a patient. It is simply the action of ignoring what someone tells you!

I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS PHARMACEUTICAL TREATMENT

HEALTH FREEDOM, PATIENT CHOICE & THE FEAR OF FREEDOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Morgan. An Angry Homeopathy Denialist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     "Utterly deluded nonsense".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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