“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Mandatory vaccination? Back to Basics

(This resource - written by Peter - is in response to the world wide move to make vaccine mandatory, to try to remove exemptions and force parents to accept a "one-size-fits-every-baby" vaccination programme.)

How can you "justify" a criminal Act?!!

As a start, a few definitions need to be born in mind.

A FACT:

An event, or thing, known to have happened or existed.

A truth that can be proved from experience or observation.

An inescapable truth, (often an unpleasant one, begrudgingly admitted.)

(See “The Great Divide” sections 176 and 177, pages 284 – 288)

A FALLACY:

An incorrect or misleading notion based on inaccurate facts or faulty reasoning.

A reasoning that is unsound.

AN OPINION:

Belief that is not founded on certainty or proof but on what seems probable.

A judgment given by an expert (e.g. of the medical profession). There is a danger that these opinions may be accepted as “facts”.

Now let’s get back to basics – plain simple stuff that is not obscured by being too complicated:

FOUNDATIONS – A FACT.

Whether it be the house we live in, or the world’s tallest building/tower, the most important part of the construction process is that which is hidden below the ground at depths carefully calculated to carry the “load” of the edifice which extends upwards, above it.

Solid rock base, deep pile drilling, steel reinforced concrete, earthquake and flood proofing techniques, and the like, are essential. They are facts no-one can ignore.

Back to basics is not only applicable to the construction of buildings. It applies equally to other areas of life too. For example, take education. Any teacher will tell you that you can’t keep adding to the learning base if the basics or foundations are not well-established and solid. Sooner or later, remedial work will be required and that can be costly and time consuming.

The old saying, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, is so true.

I would therefore like to link together a few basic facts that provide for me a solid foundation to withstand certain eroding strategies contained within the “storms” of life. For me these facts are rock solid.

FACTS:

• Every person born into this world – man, woman or child – is a unique individual.

Out of all the billions making up the population of planet Earth, there are no two people who are exactly alike. Factors such as physical, mental and spiritual characteristics, DNA and fingerprints; personalities; family trees, genes and environment; to name but a few, all contribute to make each one of us the special human being that we are. The more I think about it, the more mind-boggling is this fact. The evidence and resulting implications are overwhelming.

Systems... (such as the medical) are not usually designed to cater for individual differences. They depend on numbers of people – the greater the numbers the better they work, because it then becomes possible to lump people together according to typing criteria. This will produce categories which are assumed to have common characteristics/needs/problems, etc and will assist in conformity, compliance and control processes. Just consider how computers make this so much easier. The world’s ways have the ability to squeeze people into moulds.

As an ex-schoolteacher I am well aware of the ideal ratio of one pupil to one teacher. Individual differences need to be catered for so as to get the best results. and to help the student reach his or her potential. The bigger the group or class size the more “problem” side effects there are to address. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. A fact that cannot be argued. Just go into any shoe shop or clothing store.

With these two basic facts applying to you and me, how are the systems which operate throughout the world going to function, so that the unique individuals will be treated as they should be?

The ideal is not possible - for a range of reasons.

Governments – that means politicians – have the role of implementing policies which are always said to be in the best interests of “the people”! They exist to help keep communities safe, to provide good health and educational services, as well as appropriate welfare benefits, and to address socio-economic concerns and reasonable standards of living. We all know what happens in reality – some groups of people will benefit, many groups won’t, and always you will find a huge range of specific individual needs which haven’t and can’t, be adequately met.

Taxpayers’ money pays for legislative implementation, but as part and parcel of this will be the vested interests of the commercial world, and the competition that goes with it. All sorts of regulations will be drafted to supposedly protect those on the receiving end of the systems.

One of these systems is particularly important as it is seen to be essential to keep each unique individual fit and well – the medical organizations. How we look after our bodies and what we allow to go into them should be a very personal matter. No decisions should be made without careful weighing of the facts. The medical system relies heavily on the products sourced from drug and vaccine manufacturers. Naturally these vested interests want to convince potential “clients” that what doctors use, and what health departments recommend and subsidize from Government funding, have all been thoroughly tested and have FDA approval. So what is involved in gaining the required “certification”?

Look carefully at the following facts.

Vaccine trials usually have at least three phases. Phase one trials, (depending on the vaccine) are usually conducted on healthy adults, unless the trial is a very rare one….specifically to test a vaccine in a subset – e.g. flu vaccines tested in asthmatic children. Each “normal” vaccine trial has a list of “exclusions” or “inclusions”, and if any trial participant has an identifiable health problem they are excluded from a trial. If the vaccine is for babies, the next trial might use 100 healthy babies who also fit very strict criteria. A third phase, might be a larger number of children and babies, who also have to meet very strict criteria. It’s not unusual in a trial, for over half of the applicants to be rejected.

So as an adult, you might be refused participation in a trial if:

You’ve taken a drug that suppressed your immune system in the previous three months.

Been given a blood product.

Had an infection known to significantly impact the immune system.

You have diabetes.

You have a primary immunodeficiency. A member of your family has an immune system that doesn’t work normally.

You take any drugs the trial researchers consider might predispose you to problems.

Any other problem in your records the doctors consider reason for exclusion.


A baby or a child might be refused participation if:

Born earlier than 37 weeks.

Weighed less than 2,500 grams at birth.

Had any problems breathing at birth, or apgar under 9

Receive any IV medications or antibiotics or have any congenital, developmental or immunological issues, central nervous system issues, seizures or organ dysfunctions.

Any other event the doctors consider a reason for exclusion.


In other words, any whiff of a problem and you or your child are shown the door.

There is also no longer any such thing as a true inert placebo. A control group of similarly squeaky clean healthy people will be injected with a previously licensed vaccine or drug, assumed to be safe, to act as a ‘control’. Or sometimes the “placebo” vaccine is everything that is in the vaccine except the antigen, which might include aluminium, formaldehyde, neomycin, culture medium proteins, or other manufacturing byproducts which are not inert, and can act as antigens in their own right. The placebo group can have quite significant responses to the licensed vaccine/drug, but so long as the responses to the licensed vaccine are the same or less than the trial vaccine, the trial vaccine is considered to have no problems.

In scientific terms then, the results of those three phase trials on very healthy people should only apply to the people in whom the vaccines were tested, but in practice, once a drug or a vaccine is licensed, the criteria of inclusion for the drug or vaccine is expanded to fit as many groups as possible. When it comes to vaccines, the reality is that doctors will emphasise to the parents of children with conditions which would have excluded them from a trial, that that very condition makes it even MORE important that the child has that vaccine.

But if it’s not acceptable to administer that drug or a vaccine to babies or adults with those health problems, why does it then become acceptable after a vaccine or a drug is licensed?

Exclusion of sick people and the use of fraudulent “placebos” are two reasons why drug and vaccine data looks so good. Were both trialled using a real placebo and groups representative of those who would eventually be advised to take the product, the results might look vastly different.

How does your sense of “fair play” respond so far?!

When a vaccine or drug is certified as being safe etc, the unique individual, with all the uniqueness of all the variables applying to everyday circumstances and situations will not be representative of the group selected for the trials conducted. As soon as the “FDA stamp of approval” has been given, it will be offered with considerable arm-twisting to all who are considered “eligible” and are supposed to receive it.

Think about the variables which apply to each unique individual in this public usage. For example, factors such as:


• emotional and physical states of health.

• the effects of being exposed to others’ states of health.

• stress of various kinds

• diet

• fresh air and sunshine

• living conditions

• the body’s reaction to foreign substances ingested or injected

• the importance of a child’s pregnancy’s management

• the birth itself

• when the cord was clamped

• breastfeeding etc.

How many of these variables appear in the list of conditions applying to the trial group?!

The plain fact is that no one can be sure of the long of short term effects of using a vaccine (or drug) on the unique “yous” and “mes”.

No wonder confusion can be created by voices that don’t agree. The facts mentioned above and others below, should deliver a very clear message for those who are prepared to think them through. The tactics and strategies employed by the “system” tend to ignore these facts. This is highlighted by the arrogance of statements claiming that vaccinations are completely safe and effective.

The medical system and the vaccine manufacturers cannot, indeed will not, give an unqualified guarantee that a vaccine will provide absolute immunity, and that there will be no side effects to those to whom it is administered.

Responsible informed choice should be sacrosanct and respected. To introduce any form of compulsion in the light of these facts, makes a mockery of basic freedoms and rights! It would be tantamount to legalizing and promoting an act that could lead to grievous bodily harm, even death.

The FACTS set out here are simple to understand and are irrefutable, but to some people however, they may be unpalatable.

The specific, basic question, need not be fobbed off as being too complicated:

“To vaccinate or not to vaccinate?”

How it is answered should be determined by the facts presented here in this article:

BY CHOICE – informed choice – which will involve decisions based on the truth of the facts or whether it is more comfortable to fudge the issue by calling them opinions.

NOTE WELL: It must always be by choice; NEVER by compulsion. Yet there are so many people (especially in “high” places) who still want to call black, white, or facts, fallacies.

Let’s return to the question asked at the beginning of this article.

It appears that the medical system has different standards to that of the justice system.

With the evidence clearly supporting a verdict of guilty, a person found guilty of committing grievous bodily harm (which may result in death) would be sentenced accordingly. Would you and I support the judge if he or she disregarded the facts and commended the offender by saying that what had happened was in the best interests of the “victim” and such a “criminal” activity was entirely acceptable?!

The FACT is, that in reality, this IS happening increasingly in different countries throughout the world. The driving power of vested interests, like the juggernaut it is, guarantees this. Simple basic, undeniable FACTS will be ground into the dust and those who dare to insist on these FACTS will be ridiculed with the usual intimidating strategies designed to eliminate anyone who gets in the way. The “criminal acts” will be justified by what can only be described as the blind leading the blind.

Hilary's Desk

These are some of Hilary's latest blogs:

  1. WHOOSH ... IT'S GONE! Hilary Butler 05-May-2014
  2. IT ISN'T WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE Hilary Butler 25-Dec-2013
  3. Infant Immunity - are the blind leading the blind? Hilary Butler 03-Dec-2013
  4. Neonatal Immunity Part 4. The blindingly obvious. Hilary Butler 16-Nov-2013
  5. The definition of insanity Hilary Butler 05-Nov-2013
  6. Merck's next problem - Japan Hilary Butler 28-Aug-2013