Time to re-visit vaccination policy?

It may not be as advantageous as it is portrayed.

Claude Baesens in reply to Frants Gundelach, 

When I was pregnant (i.e. 21 years ago) I read five books on vaccinations, full of medical references. Indeed in England, where vaccination was not obligatory, GPs got a substantial bonus if at least 85% of the babies registered at their surgery took the jabs. In a nutshell (sorry my books are in Britain and I am in Belgium), the standard pattern for each disease was: vaccines were introduced AFTER the diseases had already basically disappeared (tail of the Gaussian curve that characterises an epidemic), then vaccine producers claimed the eradication was the effect of the vaccines. “Vaccines are safe and effective and have eradicated diseases” is possibly the biggest myth of medical science. Mind you, it all started with a lie with Pasteur. Maybe you could read Dissolving Illusions: Diseases, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, by Dr Suzanne Humphries et al, that I see on Amazon.

“Vaccines did not save humanity and never will. Vaccines have never been proven truly safe ...Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines as many doctors readily say it was. They say this out of conditioning rather than out of understanding the history or science. Polio virus was not responsible for the paralysis in the first part of the 20th century. Polio vaccine research, development, testing and distribution has committed atrocities upon primates and humanity. Bill Gates is not a humanitarian. Vaccines are dangerous and should never be injected into anyone for any reason. They are not the answer to infectious diseases. There are many more sustainable and benevolent solutions than vaccines” —Suzanne Humphries MD

Tim Veater

So true. The medical profession has been fixated on vaccination for at least a century as the panacea for all ills following its assumed success with Smallpox. Unfortunately wider causes are never factored in, or the policy changed in the light of events. Thus the preferred option, is always for more not less inoculations. It was this underlying philosophy that fuelled the utterly disastrous Covid programme that is now implicated in a 20% rise in death rate as well as a mass of other health issues. Mass panic and the obvious commercial factors, not least a nice little bonus for GPs, resulted in the virus being feared far more than it should have been, and the vaccine far less. Widespread vaccination was introduced in the 50's and 60's, when the infections for which they were intended, were all but defeated by improvements in diet and living conditions. Conversely any suggestion that vaccination was linked causally with other conditions was ruthlessly suppressed, never more evident in the recent Covid campaign. This still continues because the huge mistakes also have political consequences. It has taken forty years for the government to own up to and compensate people for the blood factor AIDS scandal. Will it ever admit to the on-going Covid vaccine one or to change its approach to vaccination in general?

The current government position is summed up in the following document

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting as follows:

"4. Conclusion

"Over the first 26 months of the pandemic over 178,231 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus.

"Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020.

"In clinical trials, the monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and the monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna have demonstrated very high levels of protection against symptomatic infection. Data is available on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections and illness in the UK.

"All vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness.

"Following widespread use of these vaccines across the UK, the vast majority of suspected adverse reaction reports confirm the safety profile seen in clinical trials. Most reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to the vaccines.

"The benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 far outweigh any currently known side effects. As with all vaccines and medicines, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is continuously monitored, and benefits and possible risks remain under review.

"We take every report of a suspected ADR seriously and encourage everyone to report through the Yellow Card scheme." END

It exemplifies what I have said above. It starts from the position that vaccination in general is a 'good'.  It then makes the mistake of assuming that the novel technology of the Covid vaccines must emulate the efficacy of traditional vaccines, when in fact it is experimental and untried. It also starts from the unchallenged premise that to date, nearly 180,000 people have died from the virus and that vaccination is the most effective way to prevent it. To quote the document: 

"Over the first 26 months of the pandemic over 178,231 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus. Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020."

The whole document is therefore predicated on very contentious and far from proved assertions that a large number of people have died prematurely from Coronavirus and that vaccination has prevented illness and death from this cause.  Both are subject to significant doubt. The whole document is infected by these methodological and philosophical errors. In consequence the unprecedented numbers of deaths and adverse effects is dismissed with the observation that:

"All vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness."

No context or interpretation is given to the first two assertions.  It is a huge step from saying 178,231 people died within 28 days of a positive test, to claiming they died from Corona 19. It is also unscientific and unethical to give that impression and then use it to justify a national vaccination campaign.  It must now be accepted that even if the figures are not fraudulent, the assumptions based on them are! 

There is no justification in suggesting that a positive test - with all it faults and inaccuracies - is causally or primarily linked to the subsequent death.  Nor is it revealed how many and what proportion of this stated number, were given the vaccine before they died. It is now acknowledged that in the majority of cases, people died primarily from something else, probably chronic and intractable, where old age and being institutionalised was also a factor.  

Any report on the vaccination policy that makes these grave errors should be treated with the gravest scepticism, a point confirmed by the way it treats its consideration of the enormous number of 'yellow card' notifications, that are breezily dismissed as insignificant in the scheme of things. So we have three grave errors embedded in this report: one, over-estimating the number of people who died as a result of the virus;  two, accepting the unproven claim that vaccination prevented illness and death; and three, effectively dismissing the warning signs, both clinical and statistical, that the vaccines were potentially dangerous.  

Both these approaches as regards a range of blood and coronary disorders in particularly young healthy individuals, an unusual rise in deaths in vaccinated people and a roughly 20% rise in death rate generally, confirm that the 'Yellow Card' warnings were not aberrant. Yet still government and its relevant statistical bodies refuse to acknowledge the extent of the problem and this document is proof of it. The shibboleth of the programme and vaccination policy generally, must not be shaken for fear that the whole rotten building might come tumbling down.

Just one recent case although not clear whether this was post covid vaccination:

Tosin Ugbebor shared a link.

  · 

What is going on? Are there any doctors, scientists etc brave enough to actually look thoroughly into all of this?

Granted, it doesn't help when the few cardiologists immunologists etc, who have spoken out on these issues, have been promptly blacklisted, de-platformed, censored or found themselves the subjects of audits etc.

But, surely, there's got to be safety in numbers, if only there was a critical mass of medical experts bold enough to collectively put their heads above the parapet. A number too large to all be bullied or sacked.

But what does it say, though, of the majority? Children are pointing these issues out - in particular, their frequency - and yet, medics haven't noticed a thing?

It's truly sad!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ex-corrie-star-chris-fountain-28192915?fbclid=IwAR2DVhimTXvPxhucb7KcnUNd2DUUAhFv1sLa-VqH1WYNDUYBAWx7rSGg_0s

19.10.2022 Ros Anstey Who's to say you are right and we are wrong Tim? I sometimes despair with all this controversy. Cant we just get on with our lives without all these controversy theories springing up all the time? It is so depressing and just eats our lives away...😢😢😢

Reply to Ros Anstey So you obviously think it is better to look away and ignore what I consider to be the biggest health policy fraud in our history. Literally thousands upon thousands have been injured and killed because of it. What could be more important than trying to break though the ignorance, complacency and conformity, as I and many others, have endeavoured to do for over two years? People don't have to agree with my view and everybody needs to make up their own minds about risks and the best way to avoid them, but unfortunately that was near impossible under the barrage of government misleading information and rules and the virtual censorship of opposing medical and other opinion. This is still the case and I am sorry it depresses you, but sadly the real world often has that effect. The bottom line is protecting vulnerable children of 5 years and up from a dangerous product that has been shown to have serious reproductive consequences. This is down-right evil policy from our 'wonderful' NHS. Trying to get the truth out there is a thankless task as Dr Vernon Coleman has proved. This did not stop all his depressing predictions coming true. See: https://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm For the revealing insight into the affair by an Undertaker see: https://www.facebook.com/100084693445725/videos/3302471269999052/