Informed Consent - the Dark Heart of Conventional Medicine

"Doctors are deliberately withholding information about the dangers of some routine screening and clinical procedures - often because they fear patients would then refuse treatment".

So begins a Special Report on 'Informed Consent' in the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), May 2012. The report discusses the inadequacy of information patients are given about their treatment, and raises the important question:

Are patients giving their true, informed consent to medical treatment?

          "Although it happens every day in surgeries and hospitals, the failure to inform is against the law and a breach of human rights legislation - which gives the patient the absolute right of autonomy over his or her body. It also leaves the doctor open to a legal challenge of negligence, assault and battering, and possibly even manslaughter if the drug or procedure goes wrong"

Given the dangers of Conventional Medical treatments, not least through Big Pharma vaccines and drugs, this is important, if not vital information that every citizen should know. After all, if there is a danger to the patient arising from any medical treatment, patients have the right to know, and to say "NO" if they wish to do so.

 

The report goes over all the reasons doctors give their patients for NOT telling us this information, all of which are entirely illegitimate, insisting that patients have the right to know, and that if they don't know, they cannot make an 'informed choice' about having, or not having the treatment. The information being withheld from us is legion, and the report mentions just a few of these:

    * CT Scans cause cancer through radiation in 1 in 270 people screened by them.
    * 5.7% if patients undergoing surgery for ulcerative colitis will die.
    * Bronchoscopy (when a tube is threaded down the nose) results in a death with every 2,500 procedures.

As the report states, not many patients know this kind of negative information about pharmaceutical drugs, largely because doctors are reluctant to give the information to their patients.

          "Even after the Vioxx drug scandal had become public - eventually, tyne manufacturer agreed to pay out $4.85 billion to the families of around 50,000 people who died while taking the painkiller - doctors were still asking, 'What should we tell our patients?'"

The answer is probably simple! The truth! But as the report describes in detail, medical paternalism is rife within the Conventional Medicine Establishment (it is so very different in homeopathy and other alternative medical therapies). The result is that patients are rarely told about the dangers of the treatment they are prescribed by doctors. The report suggests that patients should ask the following questions before agreeing to take any prescription drugs:

1. How long has the drug been on the market (if less than 2 years ask for an 'older generation' drug)?
2. Can you confirm I am not taking part in a drug trial?
3. Is the drug suitable for my age/gender/condition?
4.  Are you using this drug 'off-label' or for the condition for which it was originally licensed?
5.  Are there any special warning or 'black-box' alerts for this drug?
6.  Can you explain to me the known side-effects and the likelihood of me suffering them?
7.  Has the drug been tested among people similar to my own age/gender?
8.  Do you know if the drug has been banned from use in other countries? (Note, many drugs prescribed in this country have been banned in other countries)
9.  Have you given this drug to other patients? If so, have they reported any adverse reactions?
10.  Is the dose you are recommending within the guidelines of the manufacturer for my age/ gender/ condition?
11.  Do you know if the new drug will react with other drugs I am currently taking?
12.  If I start to suffer from health problems when I take the drug, I shall stop immediately, and come to see you again. Do you agree this is the best course of action?

However, the report goes on to question how many of these questions the average doctor is actually able to answer. In other words, it questions how well informed doctors are about the drugs they prescribe to us, and how reliant they are on inadequate and partial Big Pharma information.

The report goes on to consider, in some detail, what informed consent should consist off, and asks another set of questions, with the guidance - don't give your 'informed consent' to treatment or procedures without the answers to each of the questions. One of these questions is:

           "Are there alternatives of which you are aware that could also be considered?"

The report states that it is highly unlikely that most doctors will recommend the patient to try homeopathy  or any other form of natural medical therapy! The reason for this, of course, is that most doctors will not be qualified to pass any judgement on these questions. Indeed, many of them are known to consider homeopathy to be akin to witchcraft!

* Even 'alternative' advice on diet and nutrition may be a stretch too far for the doctor. Medical students in the US receive around 19 hours of education about nutrition during their five-year medical training".

As the report says, informed consent for the patient infers that the doctor is 'informed' and able to pass on the required information.

          "Informed consent infers that the doctor is informed ... not only is this far from the truth, it is also untrue even for specialists".

So an informed doctor, capable of answering important questions for you, is certainly not something that can, or should be automatically assumed! Certainly, the vast majority of doctors are informed only about conventional (pharmaceutical) medical practice. And even within this single medical discipline, they appear to work mainly on the information provided to them by the pharmaceutical industry, and other commercial medical interests. 

 

Little wonder, then, that many doctors have a limited knowledge about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, and other treatments and procedures!

However, the problem of getting informed consent is probably even more difficult than the report suggests. 

 

• National medical services, like the NHS in the UK, have become virtual pharmaceutical monopolies, and so equally unlikely to provide patients with the kind of information they require to make an informed decision about medical treatment. 
• Successive governments have failed to challenge the conventional medical establishment, and appear more interested in funding and supporting it than asking serious questions about its efficacy and safety. 
•  And the mainstream media is entirely supine in matters relating to health, parroting the 'good' news of 'medical breakthroughs' that are expected tomorrow - but ignoring the conventional medical disasters of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

So no-one appears to be able or willing to provide patients with the information they require for informed consent. The questions are not being asked, the investigations are not being carried out, that will lead to a greater understanding and awareness of the problems associated with medical health treatments being routinely offered to us today.

I would encourage everyone to read WDDTY on a regular basis. It is a magazine which is full of information about conventional medical treatment, and about alternatives to it. And it really does include material that 'doctors don't tell you', so it can lead to you, at least, becoming more aware of health issues, and therefore capable of making an informed choice.

Informed Consent to Pharmaceutical Medical Treatment. What information do patients' require?

Informed consent is important in medicine. It is especially important in Conventional (Pharmaceutical) medicine which has a long history of causing patient harm. (Click here for a list of withdrawn and banned medical drugs prescribed by doctors, especially over the last 70 years). Conventional medicine has always emphasised the importance of informed consent. For example, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) states that: 

            "For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision. The meaning of these terms are:
    * voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family;
    * informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead;
    * capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision.”

Yet conventional medicine has a poor record in assuring that the patients have given their "voluntary informed consent" when it comes to the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine is adept at informing us of the 'benefits' of drugs/vaccines; but they have been less ready to admit to the serious adverse reactions they can cause.

Indeed, in many during the recent Covid-19 pandemic it was clear that conventional medicine was prepared to mandate (force) patients to be vaccinated, without their consent, with vaccines that were (are) by its own admission 'experimental'. Even by the rather 'carefree' standards of pharmaceutical drug testing, were not fully or properly tested.

In December 2023 the USA drug regulator, the FDA, appears to have ditched the concept of voluntary informed consent entirely when it issued a 'final rule' providing an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject, and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects. This is, perhaps, thin edge of a very hefty wedge? Or perhaps, for a fundamentally dishonest industry, it is now trying to find reasons to ignore this principle altogether. Remember, at the time conventional medicine told us that Thalidomide, Vioxx, Avandia, Acomplia, Opioid painkillers, Sodium Valproate, and many others, came with "appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects"! And they killed patients!

Conventional medicine has always been highly secretive about its treatments. Electro-Convulsive Treatment continues to be used on mental health patients (perhaps less now than before) quite regardless of the lack of evidence for its efficacy. But it is the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, and their adverse effects on patients, that most secrecy exists. Remember, "the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead" (my emphasis). The reverse is usually true.

• Often the patient will not be told about 'side effects' at all.
• Or they are told only of minor 'side effects'.
• Or the serious 'side effects' are minimised, discounted, described as "uncommon" or "rare".
• Or, when the patient suffers a side effect, the doctor assures the patient the drug was not the cause.
• Or a patient suffers serious harm, and conventional medicine completely denies any link.

I wrote about informed consent in May 2012. This blog was in response to a report that described, in some detail, the problem of medical paternalism (I am a medical professional - I know best - you should/must take this drug - it is "safe and effective" - and I don't expect to be questioned). The report said that:

            "Doctors are deliberately withholding information about the dangers of some routine screening and clinical procedures - often because they fear patients would then refuse treatment".

In other words, doctors were refusing to give patients information which might help them make an "informed choice", that is, a choice different to the decision of the doctor! The report suggested that patients should ask the following questions before agreeing to take any prescription drugs:

1. How long has the drug been on the market (if less than 2 years ask for an 'older generation' drug)?
2. Can you confirm I am not taking part in a drug trial?
3. Is the drug suitable for my age/gender/condition?
4. Are you using this drug 'off-label' or for the condition for which it was originally licensed?
5. Are there any special warning or 'black-box' alerts for this drug?
6. Can you explain to me the known side-effects and the likelihood of me suffering them?
7. Has the drug been tested among people similar to my own age/gender?
8. Do you know if the drug has been banned from use in other countries? (Note, many drugs which are banned in one country are still sold and prescribed in others).
9. Have you given this drug to other patients? If so, have they reported any adverse reactions?
10. Is the dose you are recommending within the guidelines of the manufacturer for my age/ gender/ condition?
11. Do you know if the new drug will react with other drugs I am currently taking?
12. If I start to suffer from health problems when I take the drug, I shall stop immediately, and come to see you again. Do you agree this is the best course of action?

However, the report went on to question whether the average doctor would be able to answer many of these questions. In other words, it questions how well informed doctors are about the drugs they prescribe, and how reliant they are on inadequate, and partial information from the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical 'science' that it controls.

And then there is the question about whether medical staff are allowed to provide patients with 'negative' information about conventional medical treatment. The Telegraph has recently published a series of articles entitled "The four-step 'playbook' the NHS uses to break whistleblowers" which discuses how  doctors, who raise patient safety concerns, are confronted with systemic bullying and harassment from their managers and colleagues. 

This raises the important question - can doctors who wish to tell patients the whole truth about medical treatment actually allowed to do so?

The Telegraph articles outline how NHS whistleblowers have had their careers ruined whilc trying to raise concern about patient safety. It outlines how over 50 doctors and nurses have raised concerns about patient death, and poor patient care, and how rather than dealing with the problems raised NHS executives seek to undermine them using 4 specific tactics.

1. Investigating the whistleblowers rather than investigating the issues raised.
2. Bullying and Intimidatory tactics against the whistleblowers.
3. Weaponising General Medical Council referrals to silence whistleblowers.
4. Demotion, Disciplinary Action, and Dismissal.
   

Few medical professionals would want to g through this type of persecution? So the assumption must be that most do not go public with the information? So the information that the NHS does not want patient to hear about does not reach the public. And the patient has to make his/her "voluntary informed choice" without this important information.

Does this sound like an open, honest, transparent medical system to you?

Are you undertaking conventional medical treatment, or taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines?

Are you being denied information that would help you make an informed choice?

Even patients who were determined to obtain information about the treatment recommended to them. This link describes one woman's battle for medical information. The response she received to her questions show how careful patients must be to protect themselves from pharmaceutical harm; and the extent to which conventional medical authorities will go to ignore, discount and deny important information required by patients who seek to know the full picture about proposed medical treatment.

So 'voluntary informed consent' is not an easy, perhaps closer to impossible for the sceptical patients to elicit - which is perhaps why so many patients are seriously harmed by drugs which were given to make them well. The patient instead suffers serious iatrogenic harm which is then denied or discounted. 

No government, no mainstream news media, will assist you, as they invariably appear to follow the pharmaceutical line. An internet search might provide important information that doctors will otherwise keep secret. But even this is often difficult to find for ordinary, non-medical people to find.

One piece of advice I received when learning to drive a car, many years ago, was to assume that everyone else on the road was an idiot. It was good advice! It has kept me safe.

Similarly, I would advice any patient to assume that any doctor, if not an idiot, will not be prepared, or will not able, or willing, to tell the truth about the medical treatment you are being offered. So scepticism might just help keep you safe from iatrogenic harm!

Post Script

If you agree that informed choice is important in medicine, please have a look at the 'Free Speech for Health' website, and sign their petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccines: What does giving 'Informed Consent' entail?

In medicine, it appears to be generally agreed that 'Informed Consent' is important before any patient gives consent for medical treatment. However, it is clearly not universally agreed as during the last few years, during the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Conventional Medical Establishment has been party to, and supportive of, enforced or mandatory vaccination. And pharmaceutical medicine has a reputation for providing patients with "the good news" whilst remaining silent about "the bad news".

So what does giving 'Informed Consent' actually mean? Simply it is that every patient should be fully aware of both the benefits, and the risks of the proposed treatment. When pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are involved, the expected/potential benefits are always made clear. However, the risks are not; usually most conventional medical treatment is routinely described as "safe and effective".

What follows was originally posted on X by Jessica Rojas: https://twitter.com/catsscareme2021: and it is reposted here with her permission (she merely requests that you consider following her on her X (or Twitter) account. It focuses on America (although the situation is similar here in Britain and elsewhere), and focuses on the USA vaccine schedule (although similar questions can be asked regarding most conventional medical treatments).

Read it carefully - and note the complexity of the information you need before you can truly give your 'informed consent' to treatment. It is information that is not usually provided to patients prior to treatment.

   "If you are a parent who follows the CDCs VACCINE schedule, here are some facts you need to know and understand to make an informed decision.

1. I understand that the pharmaceutical company who made this vaccine has NO liability.

2. I understand that I pay a $0.75 Federal Excise Tax per vaccine, used to pay vaccine injured families through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) created by the government.

3. I understand that this vaccine contains neurotoxins such as aluminum that far exceeds “safe levels” deemed by the EPA.

4. I understand that this vaccine contains carcinogenic ingredients.

5. I understand that this vaccine was made from aborted fetal cell lines, animal and bug cells.

6. I understand that getting this vaccine does not ensure that I will be protected from the disease.

7. I understand that my child could get the very illness they was vaccinated for.

8. I understand that my child could be a carrier of the illnesses/he was vaccinated for and spread it (“shedding”) for up to six weeks.

9. I understand that my doctor may get monetarily rewarded for having a high percentage of his/her patients who are fully vaccinated.

10. I understand that if my child is injured by a vaccine, my doctor would have to spend an exorbitant amount of hours filling out paper work in order to report it to VAERS (the only way to officially report a vaccine injury).

11. I understand that my doctor has no incentive to fill out paperwork for a vaccine injury.

12. I understand that vaccine injury is under-reported.

13. I understand that vaccine mandates (like SB277) literally hand over new customers to pharmaceutical companies.

14. I understand that pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to make their product better.

15. I understand that pharmaceutical companies spend up to 4x more on advertising than they do on research.

16. I understand that corporate media gets 70% of their advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies.

17. I understand that corporate media does not want to lose revenue, certainly not 70% of it.

18. I understand that when pharmaceutical companies conduct a study (on their own product) it is in their best interest to have a favorable outcome.

19. I understand that this vaccine schedule has never been tested on children collectively and ACIP assumes it's safe as long as different limbs are used for injection.

20. I understand that this vaccine could cause injury or death, and my child could be one of them.

21. My doctor has informed me on all the risks and side effects and has reviewed the vaccine insert with me.

22. I understand that if my child dies from this vaccine I will be awarded no more than $250,000 and most cases are never heard.

23. I understand that not one vaccine has gone through a saline placebo, double-blind study.

24. I am making an informed choice to vaccinate my child.

So if you have all this information prior to agreeing too, and receiving any medical treatment, you will be able to make a fully informed choice. Otherwise, think again! Good luck!

 

Informed Consent and Homeopathy

Conventional medicine usually fails to provide patients with sufficient information about the effectiveness and safety of their treatments, and so fails to provide patients with a situation in which they can give their 'informed consent' to medical treatment. So what information should Homeopaths give to patients to ensure they are able to give their 'informed consent'. As 'the Black Duck' (a medical fundamentalist, supporter of conventional medicine) said, in response to my previous blog:

          "Perhaps you might like to tell us how homeopaths tackle the tricky issue of informed consent? Do you set out some of the controversial aspects of homeopathy, the current lack of understanding of how homeopathy might work, and so on? Do you allow patients to make their own informed decisions on the back of this information, or do you make that decision for them?

Most new Homeopathy patients fit into one of two categories. Some arrive at an early stage of their illness because they have already decided that they do not want to go through the conventional medicine route of drug-based treatment. Others have used conventional medicine, some for many years, and found that their health has not improved, or has gradually declined. In neither category can the homeopath take for granted that the patient knows enough about their illness, and its treatment by homeopathy, to ensure that they can make an 'informed choice' about it.

What do you know about homeopathy?

This opening gambit is probably a sensible one in any initial homeopathy interview as it will ascertain just where the patient is in terms of his/her knowledge and understanding. And it is always important to start from this point rather to make any assumptions. Increasingly, I am finding that potential patients have already done considerable research into homeopathy, and/or have heard about it from former patients who have been treated successfully. But nevertheless the question remains important. What patients say in response to it will determine what the homeopath needs to say to enable them to made an 'informed choice' about proceeding with homeopathy.

How does homeopathy work?

The Black Duck feels that this is important. Actually, for most patients, it is not important! Indeed, it is probably not important for patients who seek help from any medical discipline. Patients know that they are ill, and that they want to get better. Most conventional doctors would be hard-pressed to explain how their drugs are supposed to work! And it is not my experience that patients want to sit through a long, philosophical lecture on the working mechanism of any particular medical therapy!

So I usually keep the explanation (or answer) to this question quite brief, mentioning the homeopathic principle of 'treating like with like', and briefly describing 'remedy pictures', and 'symptoms of illness', and the importance in Homeopathy of matching the two together. If patients want to ask further questions about this (and most don't) I will try to provide them with answers, based on my understanding.

However, one important point should be made in response to this question. This concerns the nature of the healing process, and how this will be driven by the body, and not by the homeopathic remedy. All the remedy does is to seek to assist the body to do so - it will not do so in its own right. Remedies are not 'wonder cures', all they do is to 'nudge' the body towards its self-healing task.

In addition, every patient should be told that homeopathy works best when it is used as part of a 'holistic' strategy, which stresses the importance of good diet, exercise, and other life-style factors. 

Primarily, most patients want to know about two things. Is homeopathy an effective treatment for their condition or illness? And how safe is it?

Safety

I usually begin with the latter - safety. I tell them that homeopathy is safe, and will not cause 'side-effects', 'adverse reactions', or indeed, cause disease or death. To support this, I will give a brief description of how remedies are made - by serial dilution and succussion. I may then tell them about the 'mass suicide' demonstrations undertaken by 'homeopathy denialists', like 'the Black Duck', in order to show that remedies cannot harm patients in the same way as Big Pharma drugs. I will then affirm that if, together, we arrive at the wrong remedy it will do absolutely no good whatsoever - but likewise it will do no harm!

Effectiveness

It is then quite easy to move on to discuss effectiveness. I have always felt it important to tell patients that in order to be effective, a correct or 'similar' remedy has to be found. If such a remedy is found there will be some measure of improvement in the condition or illness. If it is not there will be no improvement. At this stage I always feel that it is important to manage expectations. There are no guarantees. This is especially important, perhaps, when a patient has arrived after homeopathy has cured or successfully treated a friend or relative (the source of most new referrals).

The Working Partnership

This quickly introduces another vital piece of information the patient needs to know about homeopathy, that the treatment process needs to be a partnership, and that it is not an 'expert-client' relationship. Although the Homeopath may have all the training and knowledge needed to determine a remedy that is 'similar', he/she can only arrive at this if the patient is able to openly, honestly and with insight, explain and describe their symptoms. 

This means that the patient is a vital part of the process. Even the most skilled and experienced homeopath has to depend on the patient for the treatment to be effective. It is a partnership.

Normally I will also tell patients that I am likely to ask some strange, and sometime intimate questions, and that these questions will often appear to have little relationship to the illness or disease being treated (at least, not in conventional terms).

In my experience, homeopathy works best when it is conducted within a professional relationship that is open, honest and transparent. And I know of no reason why the homeopath-patient relationship should be based on anything else!

Qualifications

It is always important for 'non-doctor' homeopaths, like myself, to explain that we are 'homeopaths' and not 'medical doctors' - that, for instance, we do not diagnose disease - that our skills are about matching the patients' symptoms of illness with remedies. I will usually tell patients that if they tell me anything that suggests that a formal diagnosis is necessary, or advisable, I will ask them to see their GP.

Do they wish to continue on the basis of this information?

At this point, I feel it is important for Homeopaths to ask the question - do they wish to continue? Often, this question is asked and answered during an initial telephone, or email enquiry. However, in my experience, few people who have bothered to ask these questions, when given these answers, have then decided to decline treatment. Most are content with the explanations given, and genuinely keen to proceed at this stage.

And in response to 'the Black Ducks' implied criticism, I don't know of any patient who has been forced to accept Homeopathy. Nor am I aware of any decision that I, or any other homeopath, 'make on behalf of patients'. 

Perhaps I can remind him that most patients who choose Homeopathy pay for it privately. This is quite different to the approach most patients find within the NHS: "you are ill, we are only going to offer you conventional drug-based treatment, and we are not going to tell you much about it"!

Providing the remedy.

I will always tell the patient about the remedy I would like them to take (I don't think I have ever told a patient to 'take a remedy' - I have always said 'I would like you to take this remedy'). Normally I will tell the patient what the remedy is, share some of the key symptom that it is known to deal with, and tell the patient why I feel this is important in their case. 

I will also tell the patient that if, after taking a remedy, the symptoms get worse (what we call an aggravation) to contact me in order to discuss the situation, and what to do about it.

Thereafter, the process of homeopathic treatment is concerned with the patient and homeopath working closely together, discussing changing symptoms, modifying the potency of remedies, and moving to other remedies when necessary.

Conclusion.

Providing the patient with this information, honestly and openly, enables them to give their 'informed consent' to Homeopathic treatment. And as we have seen, Informed Consent is also important to the very process of providing patients with homeopathic treatment.  So it is not 'tricky' to do so, as 'the Black Duck' suggests. It is actually quite easy, and essential to the process of healing.

Of course, it is true that providing this information to patients is easier for homeopaths as we have nothing to hide. Our remedies do not cause 'adverse reactions', disease or death. Our treatments do not involve potentially dangerous chemicals, invasive surgical procedures, or dangerous X-Rays or Radiation.

Homeopathy works alongside the body, helping it to achieve what it usually does quite naturally - keeping us healthy. Homeopathy has an easy, straight-forward and honest message that most patients, when they hear it, will understand and readily accept.

VACCINE INFORMATION FOR INFORMED CHOICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights and Health Freedom

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the US Declaration of Independence, and a committed believer in, and worker for human rights, made this prediction about medical freedom as long ago as 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."

Now, in 2013, we are beginning to face the reality he foresaw. Conventional medicine, led by the big pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma), is now organising itself as an 'undercover dictatorship'. Our individual medical freedoms are under increasing attack, with the concept of "healing" having been replaced by the "treatment" of disease, usually through expensive, highly toxic drugs and vaccines, and by invasive surgery. 

Drug-based medicine dominates national health services throughout the so-called 'developed' world. The conventional medical establishment, in the USA particularly, but with Britain not far behind, is dominated by Big Pharma companies, who are increasingly calling for medication to be ‘compulsory. And in doing so they appear to have the support of media organisations, including national press and the BBC.

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in response to the ‘Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund’ lawsuit over an interstate raw milk ban in 2010, was quoted as giving this opinion.

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

It is, perhaps, frightening for us to realise that they are probably quite correct in their opinion! Medical freedom is not firmly established in any of the main statements on Human Rights. Indeed, although most Human Rights documents cover Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Religion, the right to a free trial, and so on, Health Freedom is not specifically mentioned in any the following documents:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I948

• The European Convention on Human Rights. 1950

• The British Human Rights Act. 1998.

Threats to Health Freedom

The need for Health Freedom to be added to the key list of Human Rights is becoming daily more obvious, and can perhaps best be seen in these internet articles, merely a selection of articles that demonstrates what is going on throughout the world, mainly (but not exclusively) in the USA, Europe and Australia:

Flu vaccinations to be compulsory for all school children (USA)

No vaccination, no education (California, USA)

You can say ‘No’ to vaccines; but you might not then get medical treatment! (USA)

Paediatrician refuses to treat unvaccinated children (USA)

Arrogant doctors refuse to provide health care to parents who refuse vaccines (USA)

Medical Mafia forces parents to hide their children (USA)

Mums fight to save philosophical exemption (Vermont, USA). (And also see here too).

Parents forced to poison children with cancer-causing chemicals? (Michigan, USA)

Widespread abuse against CAM practitioners (Louisiana, USA)

Birthing rights and arrest of midwife (Indianna, USA)

Governments get heavy handed over natural health (Europe)

Free speech? You are only allowed to hear about Chemo for cancer (Britain)

Children to be sterilized with parental consent under new Eugenics Law (Australia)

ADHD children forced to take drugs (Australia)

Budget measure to end natural therapy rebates (Australia)

The list is endless. So although BigPharma, drug-based medicine dominates medical practice, the conventional medical establishment is still not happy. It seems to be insisting  that we must all take their medicine - whether we want to or not. Their mission appears to be that they have to 'save' us - because they think they know better than we do. 

It is the stuff of all political dictatorships!

Why people want to 'opt out' of Conventional Medicine

There are many reasons for a substantial and growing number of people choosing to refuse Big Pharma drugs and vaccines.

• Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not safe, and many are positively dangerous, and sometime lethal.
• Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not as effective as the claims made for them, and many of them have been withdrawn as ultimately they have been found to be useless.
• Big Pharma drug companies do not tell us the whole truth, or anything like the full truth, about their drugs and vaccines. On many occasions, especially during the last decade, they have been caught acting fraudulently and dishonestly, both in their testing and marketing of drugs and vaccines.
• Governments, the NHS, even our doctors, have consistently failed to give us full and honest information about the drugs and vaccines they endorse, and particularly about their disease-inducing-effects (DIEs).
• The mainstream media have consistently failed to investigate the claims of the Conventional Medical Establishment, and to tell the public about the known health consequences of taking conventional drugs and vaccines.
• Although one of the major outcomes of conventional medicine are euphemistically called 'side-effects', there is now little doubt that medical drugs and vaccines are causing serious disease. And they are also responsible for killing large numbers of people too.

So opting out of conventional drug-based medicine is not just a reasonable position for patients to take, it is a sensible one too. So for health services and politicians to force people to have this type of medicine, and for the mainstream media to support this, is patently a breach of our human rights.

Patient Choice

Patient Choice is now the policy of all the main political parties in Britain. And they all agree that patients should have their choice of treatment through 'informed consent'. This policy is eminently sensible, and it is one that would (if properly implemented) uphold our Health Freedoms. 

Unfortunately, the policy is not being implemented - for two main reasons.

• Patients are not being told about the shortfalls and dangers of conventional medical drugs and vaccines by the NHS until thousands of patients have been damaged. Nor does the mainstream media seem prepared to investigate, or play any role in letting us know about the dangers.

• Patient access to alternative medical therapies, such as Homeopathy, is being severely restricted because the NHS is now dominated and controlled by the Conventional Medical Establishment. See, for example, what is  happening to the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital.

So whilst the Government, the Department of Health, and the NHS is saying that patients should, indeed, choose the way they wish to be treated ("No decision about me without me", as their White Paper stated), they have left it to local NHS Commissioning bodies to determine whether they can, or will make such treatment available to patients in their area.

In other words, patients can choose what form of treatment they prefer; but the NHS bureaucracy can, and are determining whether we can have it or not!

This is NOT patient choice. It is particularly not patient choice when we then realise that 'local NHS commissioning bodies' are dominated by conventional doctors trained in, and fully committed to conventional, drug-based medicine!  

Give a Ford car salesman the right to determine whether we can buy a Volvo, and he is more than likely to say 'No'!

As British citizens, we have already paid for, and are entitled to health treatment. So it is particularly galling to realise that many people are being denied access to what we want, and forced to take what we do not want, by a medical monopoly within the NHS

Paternalism within the NHS is alive, well, and flourishing. And it is this paternalism, this idea that conventional drug-based doctors, and only these doctors, who know what is good for us who are currently depriving us of our health freedom.

Informed Consent

If Health Freedom is a 'human right', if there is to be 'Patient Choice' in healthcare provision, we need to remember one, very important thing:

"What "YOU" think about what "I" choose as medical treatment is quite immaterial;
and what "I" think about what "YOU" choose is, likewise, entirely irrelevant."

Those of us who wish to 'opt out' of conventional drug-based medicine are often told that medicine has to be 'evidence based'. By this, they mean that scientific trials, and in particular 'Randomised Controlled Trials', or RCT's. are essential. Unfortunately, RCT's are at the very heart of drug-based medicine, and this 'science' has not protected patients from the harm and dangers of conventional drugs and vaccines.

But 'informed consent' is important. Without it, patients will not be in a position to decide what treatment they wish to have when they are ill. The need for reliable and accurate information about the variety of treatments that are available is vitally important to patient choice, and health freedom. This places a heavy responsibility on national governments and health services. In order to inform us, properly, they must be obliged to provide us with information, and do to do so fairly and impartially.

At the moment the NHS provides patients only with information about conventional (drug/vaccine-based) medicine, and even then, only a partial view focusing on its benefits. What this means is that many, if not most patients, believe that there is only one form of treatment, and they know nothing of the dangers. 

Rarely are they told that the conventional drug and vaccine- based treatment might be harmful, and as a result, patients are unable to exercise and real health freedom, and their human rights are not being fulfilled.

Health Freedom as a Human Right

The right to the health treatment of our choice is a fundamental human right, and should be enshrined within all the statements describing these rights.

Health freedom needs to be enshrined within the practices of the NHS. The medical monopoly with the NHS needs to be broken, not least because it was never the intention that it should become a monopoly supplier of one type of medicine.