There is to be a protest against mandatory vaccination on Saturday, 3 October at 12 noon at the Houses of Parliament, Parliament Square Garden, Westminster, London. The protest should finished around 2pm.
Some of the details are as follows:
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have taken over the control of the UK vaccination schedule and now have the power to bring in new vaccines without government approval, even if they haven't been safety tested. Prior to this, all new vaccines would have to pass through parliament and be voted on before they were introduced. Now the government is compelled to agree with anything JCVI say, even if there is no science to back it up.
JCVI are also exploring whether to get a 'guardian of the state' for all unvaccinated children and sue their parents to force them to vaccinate - this means that vegetarians will be forced to take animal products via vaccines, people will be forced to be injected with cancer-causing chemicals and those people who have already had vaccine reactions and disabilities will have their lives put at risk.
Those on the committee are also on the boards of the drug companies who make vaccines and so are profiting from their recommendations.
To safeguard our right to choose the healthcare for ourselves and our children, Vaccination Awareness Network, the advocacy group for parents who don't vaccinate, will be protesting against mandatory vaccination and conflict of interest.
In the minutes of the JCVI, it is stated that the recommendations (backed by law) apply to England. I have spent some time trying to verify the position of the Scottish government on this matter, but have found nothing. If anyone does have information regarding Scotland's standpoint I would be grateful for a link.
For more information about the protest go here.
Posts
38 comments:
Have you seen the latest on http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/ on this subject? The way this is going is bad. The government is clearly in the hands of the industry lobbyists and managers.
No Demetrius, but I shall go and look right now. It is indeed going bad when some committee can lay down laws without any publicity. But that's labour for us.
Demetrius, thank you for the link by the way.
And there's more.
Scary stuff
Personally I am all for freedom of choice, but if you don't take the vaccination and you fall victim to Swine Flu/Cervical Cancer the NHS shouldn't have to foot the bill. That's fair isn't it? Particularly after the MMR debacle leading to a significant additional cost to the NHS to treat Measles Mumps and Rubella in teenagers, a cost considerably more expensive than any vaccination program and problems with the small number of adverse reactions.
With all this rush and lack of proper testing of vaccines, and throwing in compulsion, does anyone remember thalidomide ?
Many thanks Rab, I should have included that as a link.
So polaris, if you select to have an operation in the private sector, but something goes wrong and the private sector doesn't have the facilities to treat you, then you're saying "tough"?
I've seen first hand an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine. I doubt if anyone would consider cost when they see the damage done to even one young life.
Apogee, that's like comparing paracetomol to artificial limbs.
Thalidomide was a sedative, that had untested side effect in pregnant women, who were prescribed it as an anti morning sickness drug. At the time drug companies were forbidden to test drugs on pregnant women for obvious reasons. Thalidomide chemically was a relatively innocuous compound - and is now a successful drug used in the treatment of myeloma.
This is just the type of comparison that led to this years 2000% increase in measle infections, with
many deaths - many more than those expected through complications in any vaccination program.
Apogee, thalidomide was highlighted last week if I remember.
Another case of poor/inadequate testing.
The anti-MMR hype was fraud for which the individuals responsible for should hang... (their heads in shame)
Ben Goldacre has quite a lot of useful information on MMR if you are unsure of the science...
Polaris, I've very sure of the MMR science thanks very much. In fact if you'd like more information, I'm also sure I could provide it, although mine is around 25 years old. I have kept reasonably updated though but not to the extent I did 25 years ago.
Subrosa, that is a false argument, a more valid comparison might be the lives saved by the eradication, through vaccination of smallpox. Bear in mind the Spanish Flu epidemic (one of the few time since the Plague that human population figures fell worldwide).
I personally am severely allergic to penicillin, but privately or publicly administered it has saved millions of lives, I am not going to call for it being banned because the first time I was prescribed it I spent 3 days in intensive care, and I am told I was lucky to survive... Though some may say that would be a blessing
< Would love to see your science on MMR, but I am not a doctor and if it is as conclusive as you infer you should really be passing it on to a qualified individual - what about mailing it to Ben Goldacre - or I'll do it if you want?
Did I say I wanted the MMR vaccine banned or even this flu vaccine banned? I don't think so.
I cannot speak for anyone other than myself (or my children when they were young).
I too am allergic to penicillin but was lucky enough to be at a dinner where a medic was present when my face and tongue swelled to the extent it was choking me. If that had happened in my sleep who knows what may have happened?
That's over 30 years ago now and I would no more suggest that people shouldn't use penicillin than I would suggest I should.
Have to admit, I think hospitals are rather lax about it though. Long story but was nearly given it 3 times last visit.
Its interesting: if this new agency takes choice out of the equation, I assume they'll take responsibility if something goes wrong?
I'm sure Ben Goldacre has read what I have in the loft.
I spent a great deal of money and time assessing the situation 25 years ago because of family reasons.
Much depended upon the family history and I conferred with two of the top genetic specialists of the day too.
Therefore I was able to make an informed decision, which I did.
Subrosa, the post above is not exactly pro vaccination is it? It is publicising "a protest against mandatory vaccination". I presume that the verification you were looking for from the Scottish Government would suit you either way? Then why would you pursue a verification?
I am obviously confused, despite your 'anti' sympathies being worn on your sleeve. That's the complex business of interpretation - I guess I am not very accomplished at it.
To re-iterate, I entirely support anybody refusing a vaccine on any grounds, including the green space man telling them not to accept it - but don't expect the NHS to pick up the pieces - that's just not fair on the rest of the population who are put at risk by their decision; but are expected to pay for the dissenters treatment. A comprehensive vaccination program wipes out the virus strain, a partly implemented one leaves us all vulnerable to mutation and latent carriers - not to mention subsequent re-occurrence.
Subrosa, I appreciate that your family may have had particular concerns, and I even in mass vaccination programs certain patients are exempt under medical advisement.
Things have changed considerably in that time; 25 years ago mapping the human genome was a little understand theoretical possibility. The 25th birthday of the first DNA fingerprint was on Sept 10th - and that was a fuzzy outline.
Polaris, I really don't know where you're coming from now with this.
First you state you're all for freedom of choice, now you're complaining because I agree there should be choice.
I'm against mandatory vaccination. Never have I said I was anti-vaccination.
If I choose not to have the flu vaccination I'm going to be classed as a dissenter? Auch that's plain silly.
This new flu vaccine has not been tested throughly at all. Read the contents on Demetrius' link - particularly the minutes.
Just like you, I'm entitled to make my own informed decisions about such things. The NHS is there to provide healthcare for me regardless of my choices.
If everyone was refused healthcare on the grounds of choices such as drug taking, excess alcohol etc then we would require fewer hospitals wouldn't we.
Don't tell me that drugs and alcohol don't affect others, they do.
No medic advised me polaris, they just gave me the facts as they saw them. I made the decision.
My present GP offers options and I make the decision. Until I lose my marbles that's how I will take responsibility for my own health.
As I said, Ben Goldacre possibly has all the scientific papers from 25 years ago. You can only make a decision from the evidence available at the time and yes, thankfully medicine has moved on in some areas.
Swine Flu is a virus and as such can mutate and change in a very short space of time. Consequently reactive treatment will be far more effective in the long term otherwise pandora's box is waiting in the wings. They will have to inject me over my dead body.
Because anti vaccination hype will kill people - not save lives. The evidence is overwhelming.
The time, circa 1961.
The place, Edinburgh Royal Sick Children's Hospital.
Quaranteened annex, Lauder Road.
The subject. Experimental vacine for the use of
The subject. small boy caged alongside a small group of other guinea pigs.
Like to see the mark on my arm?
It's a beauty, even after all those years.
...and not a written word by way of 'history' in my medical records.
...and folk wonder why I'm so suspicious of folk in authority and their championing of their 'becauses' in the name of who ever.
as I have said before;
Just because they say so, does not necessary mean it is so,
...or will be so.
particularly where beezness espouses and politicos oblige so.
Just folk following the money, as per usual.
Oh, and less than a mile away from me,
a wee lassie of fourteen was given a jab.
She's in the morgue now.
Ah suppose we'll have the usual platitudes of it's nae body's fault shortly.
...and of course there will the sympathy from the politicos,lobbyists, consultants, experts and special beezness interests.
something along the lines of
didn't die in vain, or maybe steps will be taken.
Oh Aye, and we'll be told that it was the wee lassie's body at fault.
...and the vacine is safe, you know.
As part timers and future employees sometime known as lobbyists, consultants and the 'convinced' trouser their fees in gratitude and look forward to future gratification and co operation in whatever.
Polaris,
Sorry, but I fail to follow the logic of your argument.
You support ‘choice, but if that ‘choice’ leads, for some, to problems your argument is -
“but don't expect the NHS to pick up the pieces”
People have ‘choice’ not just in vaccination but in other aspects of their health.
“but don't expect the NHS to pick up the pieces“
You would not treat the driver of an RTA if alcohol had been used?
“but don't expect the NHS to pick up the pieces”
You would not treat a respiratory patient if cigarettes had been used?
“but don't expect the NHS to pick up the pieces”
You would not treat a diabetic patient if an inappropriate diet had been used?
A large proportion of our ‘choices’ can lead to adverse consequences, both to the individual and to others. Take the drunken driver, it is, to quote, “just not fair on the rest of the population who are put at risk by their decision”
Choice is rarely a malicious act, it is only with hindsight that we can fully recognise the implications of our ‘choice’.
Besides, who is going to sit in judgement on a fellow human who’s ‘choice’ has put them in need of subsequent treatment. You?
As for my thoughts on H1N1 they can be found here.
As for anti vaccination hype – please remind me about Fort Dix.
John, I do sympathise with your predicament. It must be a very difficult decision for you to make but, whatever you decide, it will be the better choice for you.
I wonder if the politicos, lobbyists, consultants et al will be first in line for this wisnaeme? Somehow I hae ma doots.
There's fairly powerful overwhelming evidence against the use of this vaccine at present polaris.
Polaris, just for you:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NUL20090928&articleId=15442
Schoolgirl dies after cervical cancer vaccination
• HPV vaccine batch quarantined as 'precautionary measure'
• Vaccination part of national immunisation programme
The Guardian, Tuesday 29 September 2009 01.49 BST
Article history
Although no link has yet been made between the girl's death and the HPV vaccine, the batch has been quarantined.
An urgent investigation has been launched after a 14-year-old girl died shortly after receiving a cervical cancer vaccination at her school.
Natalie Morton was a pupil at the Blue Coat Church of England School in Coventry, where she was given the human papilloma virus (HPV) jab yesterday. She was taken to Coventry University hospital, where she died at lunchtime.
http://tinyurl.com/yeg9n6r
wisnaeme
A clinical trial where contra-indications were found, isn't that the point?
JRB
You are entirely correct Fort Dix confirms the efficacy of vaccines - CDC report 1976 stated "If the outbreak was more than an anomaly, why did it not extend beyond basic trainees? Several factors merit consideration. Contact between basic trainees and others was limited. Moreover, a swine influenza antigen was included in annual military influenza vaccine formulations from 1955 through 1969 (10). The high antibody titers to A/Mayo Clinic antigen observed with increasing age in the Phlebotomy Clinic population may reflect earlier influenza A (H1N1) infections or vaccine exposure and some protection (11). Also, competition between A/New Jersey and A/Victoria viruses must be considered. The A/Victoria virus spread widely and may have limited the impact of A/New Jersey virus with its lesser ability for human transmission."
As to my point re denial of treatment - I personally would support lifestyle choices being taken into consideration when prioritising medical treatment, note that's personally. The MMR pseudo science hype inflamed me to this point - non-scientific new age types would rather put their trust in faith, homeopathy or magneto therapy over solid science, we as a species are regressing, technologically speaking. Why doesn't god heal amputees?
Subrosa
Michel Chussodovsky edits "globalresearch" he is an odd one - He predicted all out nuclear attacks by the US and Israel on Iran in 2006, and troops in US streets this summer. Take any predictions made by him and his cohort with a pinch of salt - a bit of a "the end is nigh" conspiracy theorist.
And so it ends, interesting debate.
A "perplexing" Canadian study linking H1N1 to seasonal flu shots is throwing national influenza plans into disarray and testing public faith in the government agencies responsible for protecting the nation's health.
Keep in touch with the science at the above blog. Regarding costs to the NHS if a boycott of the vaccine leads to an epidemic, it seems that since the pharma companies have been indemnified against prosecution, lawsuits for damages (which provably include Guillian Barre Syndrome) would be against the NHS or Health Boards or any other agency (e.g. an employer) mandating vaccination.
It's a real effort to keep an open mind on this - I don't trust the US/UK governments one millimetre, and they have been rumouring diasaster from H1N1 for so long that one begins to suspect that they have some way of guaranteeing it. I'm one of those with an 'underlying health condition' but I think I'll go to jail before I'll take their vaccine.
Polaris, if you think I would make a decision on the findings or articles of one person you're wrong.
Globalresearch is only one source of many but, reliable and certainly worth reading in my experience.
Nothing wrong with being an 'end is nigh' theorist - at least, in this rapidly changing world, some of us look to the future.
I'm an optimist and a cynic so I have a foot in both camps. :)
Thanks for the debate, thanks to all.
I read about that yesterday scunnert. Many medics say that vaccine wasn't fully tested either.
Wonder if the Scottish government will halt its programme until further investigation is made?
Vronsky, I've been following Meryl Nass for some months now, since you gave me the link in fact.
I too would rather go to prison than have this. Anyway I'm over 60 so they're hoping we'll all die off.
Subrosa, I think it's important that both sides are aired. Please forgive me if you feel that this was personal, it's not. I often take sides contrary to my opinion - how else do we come to informed decisions without considering both sides? I have learned more from this thread (on both sides) than I would if I had stuck with my natural mistrust of big government.
Juts put me down as the slightly mad skeptic... Or just put me down?
Polaris, of course both sides should be aired, in fact all sides should be.
Oh I wouldn't say you're a slightly mad sceptic, but rather a clever debater.
We all need to be sceptical of any information unless of course, the writer is yourself. :)
touche
Post a Comment