Vaccination And Your Legal Rights
Vaccinations Are Voluntary, Even In Countries That Mandate Them
All vaccines are voluntary
Having a health visitor at your home is also voluntary, you don’t have to have one, particularly as they are employed to promote vaccination and policies which don’t encourage breast feeding.
You don’t need vaccines to go swimming, go to school or anything else.
I have taken my children swimming, to state toddler groups and state daycare centres without vaccination. All you write on the forms if they ask, is ‘philosophical objector to vaccination’, then put N/A through the bit that asks you to list vaccines and write ‘Do Not Administer Tetanus Vaccine in an emergency’ when you are asked to sign to give staff consent to provide medical treatment.
This has always worked fine for my family.
If there ever were mandates for vaccines, you could get either medical, philosophical or religious exemption to vaccines and all the school would require is a certificate saying your child is exempt.
State school is not a legal requirement, only EDUCATION is, so you also have the option of not sending your child to school or choosing a more child-centred schooling option such as a Steiner school or other type of private tuition.
If you withhold consent to vaccinate they CANNOT override you except in the case of an older child. Older children can give consent to vaccinate even if their parents have said no, and likewise, they can also refuse consent when under 16, if their parents have consented and they don’t want a vaccine.
This is why classes in schools on ‘immunisation’ are being planned and why the NHS has vaccine information targetted at children, to pressure them into submitting to it without parental consent.
Changes To The Law On Vaccination
New law introduced by the backdoor in January this year obliges the Secretary of State for Health to implement any recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: [Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Vaccination].
Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-
* what exactly ‘right’ meant [under the new NHS constitution] with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and
* how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’“
In other words, if a parent does not want a child vaccinated but the JCVI have recommended all children be vaccinated, the JCVI are asking can their recommendation be challenged by the parent. It would seem once they have their answer, they will decide whether or not to make their recommendation. This appears one step from compulsory vaccination for children regardless of parental views or concerns.
If the JCVI decide to make their recommendation, and a legal case ensues this might mean a Guardian is appointed by the State to represent the interests of the child and through the Guardian sue its own parents to insist on the “right” to be vaccinated as mandated by the JCVI. The parents would in effect be forced to defend the case against their own child brought through the Guardian to oppose their own child being vaccinated. Once the first case was decided, the matter would be settled in practical terms for all UK parents.
Thus the UK appears to be on the verge of ‘1984′ style legislation and guidelines in which freedoms are taken away from citizens framed in terms of rights granted. And this has happened without political or public debate, scrutiny or democratic vote.
The newly published draft minutes for the JCVI in February disclose that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by executive order in January seem designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution.
According to the JCVI minutes the new NHS constitution states:
‘You have the right to receive the vaccinations that the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation recommend that you should receive under an NHS provided national immunisation programme.’
‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’
The minutes state:
‘The JCVI was pleased the recommendations of the committee would have the force of law behind it. The committee asked for clarification on the constitution including what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’
Irrespective of any claimed benefits of a vaccine programme the constitutional implications of this change are concerning.
The JCVI is by law now a law unto itself and flexing its muscles despite a history of disregard for safety issues over the past 20 years and more.
It is unclear what ultimate responsibility the JCVI bears for its actions, or if any sanctions apply to it. The criterion for recommendations by the JCVI is purely on “cost-effectiveness” not safety – a re-statement of the committee’s defective historical remit. JCVI members have financial and professional associations with vaccine manufacturers. No action has been taken to curb this.
Any ordinary concept of legality appears subverted, and power ceded to industry insiders.
This has taken place without democratic reference: compulsory vaccination is not part of any party’s policy and it has never been debated in Parliament.
If this is going to happen at all there should be extensive consultations, safeguards, debate and a vote. Everyone concerned about this matter should urgently contact their MP, whose address can be found here http://tinyurl.com/ljxtgv .
– – – – – o o o – – – – –
The Problem With Compulsory Vaccination
The main concern with compulsory vaccination is that we are already causing more serious health problem than the ones we are supposed to be addressing. For example:-
* though well-known in the drug industry vaccines cause allergy the House of Lords Select Committee Report on Allergy contains no reference to this;
* UK asthma is bigger now than all childhood infectious disease would be without vaccines [statistics below];
The answer of Baroness Finlay who chaired the Lord’s committee is in summary – “we consulted widely and no one told us“.
Adjuvants are an ingredient in all vaccines and cause allergy. US biotech company BioSante’s CEO, Steve Simes said on the launch of their new adjuvant:-
The problem with most adjuvants is that they can cause allergies,” said Simes. “Ours might not be as potent as others, but it is safer.”
BioSante: Promise for bird-flu drug
By Val Brickates Kennedy, MarketWatch
Last Update: 3:45 PM ET Apr 24, 2006
The drug industry has created a quasi-religious belief in the importance of vaccines such that criticism is not permitted.
* 1 death every seven hours
* 1400 deaths pa
* 21 every year are children
* 500 are adults under 65
* 5.2 million UK people affected
o 4.1 million adults
o 1.1 million children
* 1 hospital admission every 7.5 minutes
* tens of thousands are debilitated by serious asthma
* 12.7 million working days a year are lost due to asthma –
o this is a triple whammy – we lose three times over – in productivity, increased burden of welfare benefits and oncost in NHS services
o asthma costs the NHS £889 million every year
[source Asthma UK – 2004]
Asthma is not the only example of the problem nor are adjuvants the only cause of allergy in vaccines.
The overarching issue is public and child health safety on a rational scientific and medical expert analysis and no other kind. Instead we see label-libel of critics as “anti-vaccine” [but see “There Is No “Anti-Vaccine” Movement”].
And why is this happening. The drug industry has been changing its business models from one the financial markets have long known was failing – “blockbuster” patented drugs – to others including one which made Bill Gates billions – pretty much everyone must have Microsoft’s Windows software on their computer and everyone must be vax’ed. The financial lure for the drug industry is the biggest it has ever had.
Compulsory Vaccination For A Non-existent “Pandemic”
Whatever happened in Mexico it was no pandemic [but it was hype] and here is France’s reaction:-
* France Plans Compulsory ‘Flu Vaccination
* Refusing French Citizens Face Fines, Imprisonment, State Interference In Homes and Businesses
* French Whistleblower – Vaccine Industry Based on “Tissue of Lies”
Source: Child Health Safety, 29th May 2009.
A Welsh MP Also Wants To Make Vaccines Mandatory For Wales
Edwina Hart said she was prepared to “explore further the options” for a compulsory childhood vaccination policy for Wales.
Ms Hart added that they would need to weigh higher vaccination levels against “the controversy likely to ensue”.
Source: BBC News, 2 June 2009.
DON’T PANIC -THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO SAFEGUARD YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE
2. Write a letter of protest to 10 Downing Street about the transferal of vaccine decisions to the JCVI, rather than through normal government processes.
3. Write a letter of protest about mandatory vaccines to your local MP and to the National Assembly for Wales, here:
The minister proposing coerced vaccination is Edwina Hart. Contact her here:
Contact Edwina Hart by email at: Correspondence.Edwina.Hart@wales.gsi.gov.uk
to make a complaint.
Another MP in favour of forced vaccination is Lynne Neagle. You can write her a letter of complaint at:
4. VAN UK will be coordinating with other groups to plan PEACEFUL demonstrations outside parliment. When we have more information, we will post it. Contact us if you wish to take part in a PEACEFUL demonstration.
5. Consider home schooling your child. Proposed mandates appear to be around school entry, and under 16’s can be pressured in school to consent to a vaccine in spite of parental objection.
School is not a legal requirement, only education is.
There would be a limit to what the state can do in the case of a home educated child, since he is out of the state system – particularly if he has always been home educated and never gone to school, as then there is no legal requirement to notify the education authority.
6. Roughly 5% of parents choose not to vaccinate at all, that’s 5 children in every 100. Another 15% refuse MMR. That’s approximately 20-25% of the population who refuse some or all vaccines. There are far too many parents with this objection for the JCVI to sue, and too many of us willing to fight, for them to be successful.
At the very least, we would be entitled to exemptions like parents get in other countries that mandate, namely philosophical, medical or religious exemptions.
VAN UK will be seeking legal advice in order to assist our clients should the JCVI ever try to sue a parent via a ‘guardian of the state’. Watch this space for more information.
Advice On How To Stand Up For Your Rights From Dr. Mansfield, GP
Although the Department of Health continues publicly to assert that vaccines should remain a voluntary option, the BMA this week debates a proposal to make MMR compulsory.
Kites like this have been flown before, but it distresses me that any doctor would ever entertain such an idea. To impose by law upon a perfectly healthy child a vaccine which carries a small but real risk of harm, against a disease which a healthy child will ride out perfectly well, is negligence of the duty of care. The effect, across a population, is bound to include a number of adverse reactions which may or may not clear up.
Furthermore, to impose simultaneously three live vaccines representing diseases that can never naturally co-habit the same body, is to raise the bar unnecessarily and unacceptably. The combination is less efficient and requires two doses at least, whereas given singly one of each provides reliable protection for 1-2 decades.
As if this were not enough, it is inappropriate to the point of negligence to impose vaccines against rubella and mumps a full decade before these diseases pose any threat, and deprive the victim of an opportunity of life-long protection from harmless natural infection at a safe age (before the onset of puberty).
It is just as extraordinary that the public has not risen in outrage against these monstrous arrangements, even when technically optional. Pressure to accept has been relentless, for decades. The supine acceptance by our public health officials of whatever the vaccine manufacturers wish to sell has been a scandal since the mid 1980s.
If no robust objections are registered against what is happening by a sufficient proportion of the public, then we shall get whatever the power-that-be want us to have. And it will be no more than we deserve.
MPs – particularly now – reckon one personally written letter expressing a strong opinion on any subject is worth about 250 votes. Write to yours, and tell him what you think. Tell him or her the Department of Health agenda is bogus and contrary to the interests of healthy children.
Assert that if vaccines become compulsory, so must state-funded vaccine damage compensation.
The truth is we have been running on good home hygiene and decent nourishment for the past century. If you are prepared to put in those vital assets, nobody has the right to insist you take part in measures that insult your intelligence, cannot help your child’s health and may conceivably harm it.
Source: www.thestirrer.co.uk, 5th June 2009.
Letter I wrote to Edwina Hart and Lynne Neagle, Welsh MP’s wanting to mandate MMR in Wales
It relieved me to hear that you don’t intend to push through an ill thought out idea of mandating MMR but I feel that you should educate yourself on vaccination in general and on those parents who choose not to vaccinate.
I am one such parent and I refused all vaccines for my children, not just MMR, and this was 2 years before Dr. Wakefield’s research and had nothing to do with him or autism.
Vaccines contain many noxious ingredients such as formaldehyde, which is causally related to throat and nasal cancers, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/formaldehyde , trace amounts of thimerosal, a 50% mercury compound, phenols, monkey kidney tissue, bovine tissue (I am vegetarian and so are my children), and the MMR you blindly advocate is cultured on fetal tissue from abortions. As I am pro-life I cannot inject my children with tissue from an unborn baby.
According to the manufacturer’s data sheet for vaccinations, vaccines can cause numerous illnesses and even disabilities and death. See http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/m/MMRIIinj.htm
This lists things like meningitis and encephalitis as effects of MMR. Even the NHS’s own website says that 1 in every 1000 children vaccinated will have a convulsion.
As a mother, I cannot inject my child with something that may cause him to have a fit or even die. I understand if he gets an illness, he may get a bad case of it and could have a convulsion through illness, but at least that is nature and not something I did. I don’t owe society anything. My responsibility as a mother is to my child and my child alone. If I inject my child with MMR and then he becomes one of the 11% of recipients who get arthritis from the rubella component (according to the BNF), then he and only he will suffer those consequences. The pregnant mother who he was vaccinated to protect is not going to share in his arthritis. If he becomes one of the people permanently brain injured by vaccines, then the cancer patient up the street is not going to come and help me provide life-long care for him. Aside from that, the BNF of 1986 states that congenital rubella syndrome only accounts for 1% of pregnancy abnormalities.
From page 387 of the BNF, 1986:
The introduction of a vaccine to protect a fetus as not yet conceived was a totally new idea. Rubella as a childhood disease is of little moment, but rubella infection in a pregnant woman greatly increases the risks of congenital malformation.
Rubella vaccines are prepared in tissue culture oils of rabbit kidney or duck embryo or human diploid cell lines (aborted human fetal tissue).
In the long term it is hoped that the routine immunisation of school girls will produce an immune adult female population but in order to prevent congenital abnormalities due to rubella it may require 100% acceptance of the vaccine and this has rarely been achieved with other vaccines.
Acceptance of the vaccine might be greater among schoolgirl’s if the effort was concentrated among 10 year olds, but even so, with a high acceptance rate, the efficacy of this programme will not be evident until the end of the centuary.
At the same time, the damage which is being done by rubella must be kept in perspective, FOR IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERHAPS ONLY ABOUT 1% OF ALL CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES.
In the same edition of BNF they referred to mumps as not being serious enough for a vaccine:
From page 385:
SINCE MUMPS AND IT’S COMPLICATIONS ARE VERY RARELY SERIOUS, THERE IS LITTLE INDICATION FOR ROUTINE USE OF A MUMPS VACCINE.
Even the compensation programme for victims of vaccines does not uphold their end of the bargain in honouring those who were sacrificed for ‘the greater good’, because you cannot claim until your child is 2 and if he died from his vaccine shots before that age, you can’t get any compensation. As the vaccine programme starts at 2 months – the government basically welcomes you in but provides no recourse should something happen to your child.
In addition to the very real and serious risks from vaccinations and the extremely offensive ingredients, there is no guarantee that a vaccinated child will be immunised. Indeed, all of the literature that I have read on recent measles ‘epidemics’ are in people who have already been vaccinated and it is being blamed on waning.
For instance, see this one showing vaccinated people getting mumps:
Eurosurveillance, Volume 14, Issue 5, 05 February 2009
Twenty-three cases of clinical mumps in young people have been reported in North Wales over a five-week period since late December 2008. All cases have social links, and most of them have received two doses of mumps-containing vaccine.
Since 27 December 2008, the North Wales Health Protection Team of the National Public Health Service for Wales has been notified of 23 cases of clinical mumps. The onset dates are shown in the Figure. The age range was 9-37 years with a median of 15-16 years, and similar numbers of males and females were affected. The cases are all linked via family or social groups.
Figure. Epidemic curve, mumps cluster on Anglesey, North Wales, December 2008 – January 2009 (n=23)
The first case reported on 27 December was a student in Manchester where, as confirmed by the Health Protection Unit, a number of mumps cases have occurred among students in recent weeks. They received an increase in notifications in the first week of December 2008 which peaked in the second week of December, and it is plausible that the student was infected at this time.
Transmission from this case probably occurred at a Young Farmers party held on Anglesey on the 27 December 2008. Members of two local Young Farmers groups were invited, comprising around 50 young people aged 13 to 27 years.
An unusual feature of this outbreak is that 20 of the cases had received two doses of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and two cases had had one dose. The only unvaccinated case was a 37 year-old patient who was too old to have been offered MMR as a child. Most cases appear to be mild, with no reports to date of orchitis or other complications. MMR vaccine was introduced into the childhood vaccination programme of the United Kingdom (UK) in 1988. The mumps strain currently used in the MMR vaccine is Jeryl Lynn. However, some of the older cases (over 17 years-old) in this outbreak will have received MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain which was used in the UK from 1988 to 1992.
And here’s one showing antibodies from MMR only lasting 5 to 6 years:
This means that the vaccine wanes when the person is a teen or adult, when measles is much more serious. Edward Corbett from NHS customer services informed me that 1 in 200 adults will get measles encephalitis, a much higher rate than children.
And the death statistics for measles from the HPA state that all deaths from measles apart from one death in 1992, were in ‘older people’ – i.e. only 1 child died from measles since records began in 1940! (excluding an immune-suppressed child with a lung disease):
Source: Office for National Statistics
In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.
Other measles deaths shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.
So it seems to me like the MMR is skewing the age distribution of the disease and causing deaths in adults. Certainly with the risk of side-effects involved in vaccination, one death in 1992 does not seem to justify those risks.
So next time you want to blame parents of unvaccinated children for epidemics, maybe you should look at who got the diseases. A lot of parents choose not to vaccinate and not because of Wakefield or autism. Please credit us with some intelligence. We are not stupid, we researched in depth and didn’t make our decision lightly.
Finally, I home educate my children, partly because I was worried about them being vaccinated without consent (but also for other reasons). If you or anyone else follows up with this idea, you will simply find that a lot of parents will abandon your already questionable state schools and you will just create a larger home education community, which is not what you want.
Mother to 5 UNVACCINATED children, aged 13, 11, 9, 6 and 2.
You Can’t Hear The Jackboots, But It’s Still Oppression
As one of the few British people who has actually lived in a Communist country (Moscow in the early Nineties, since you ask), I know better than most what such societies feel like, and how they work. And in the past two weeks I have seen several developments in Britain which seem strangely familiar.
The first was a proposal to refuse school places to children who had not been given the MMR injection. I have no idea if the MMR is safe or not. But I know many thoughtful and well-informed people who believe that it damaged their children, or fear that it might do so. A free country would not blackmail individuals in this way.
The next was a sinister report from the ‘Department for Children’ demanding that prying officials be empowered to force their way into the homes of parents who prefer to educate their sons and daughters at home.
This is our all-powerful State’s angry response to a growing rebellion, by mothers and fathers who are sick of seeing their children bullied, neglected and miseducated in the state education system, and rightly think they can do a better job. How can the commissars in charge of the Western world’s worst schools be fit to judge how well a parent is teaching her own child?
The pretext for this invasion of privacy is a baseless suggestion that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse. Well, so it could, and so could piano lessons, dentistry or newspaper delivery rounds. But these are not subject to Comrade Balls’s new inquisition. Why not? Because they don’t challenge his desire to march all children into egalitarian comprehensive sausage machines, notorious as they are for violence, ignorance and drugs.
Interesting, isn’t it, that on the one hand these new Stalinists want to deny school to the children of dissenters, and on the other to force dissenters to send their children to school. I suspect that what they really want to do is to prosecute both groups, and these moves are a step towards that. The common theme is the desire to tell people what to think.
But there’s a third development which should also scare us. Two thirds of British pre-school children are now left in nurseries as their mothers are marched off to wage-slavery.
Well, you might like to know that Vladimir Lenin once described such nurseries as ‘the germ cell of the Communist society’ because they stole children from their parents and placed upbringing in the hands of the authorities.
Private life, the family home, freedom of conscience and action, have never been so menaced. But because this oppression is not accompanied by the crash of goose-stepping jackboots, we don’t see it for what it is. It is time we did.
Source: The Mail Online, by Peter Hitchens, 13th June 2009.
WHO Lauches Global Mandatory Vaccination Programme
The World Health Organization has issued a binding ‘recommendation’ to all member countries requiring them to institute mandatory vaccination programs. Under an existing multilateral agreement this formally invokes each state’s pandemic plan and puts coordination under control of WHO. For some European states the pandemic plan includes setting aside government as normal and ruling the country by a special council under control of the EU and WHO. France has already announced that it will effect a move to military rule beginning in September.
The global pandemic vaccination program will begin somewhere around the end of September and last about two months. Many countries are in the process of acquiring from Baxter, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies enough doses of vaccine to vaccinate their entire population twice. They remain quiet about mandatory vaccination, simply saying they will make vaccination ‘available’ to all on a priority basis. But Greece and Switzerland have already announced that their programs will be mandatory and enforced by the military. There are unconfirmed reports that Norway and Israel have done the same. The United States is preparing for military ‘assisted’ mandatory vaccination but has not explicitly declared its intentions to the public.
Source: Columbia Valley News, 14 August 2009.
|Text-only version of this page | Edit this page | Manage website | Website design: 2-minute-website.com