US paediatricians to withhold medical treatment?

There is an obvious trend to attempt to enforce  vaccination of children. We heard how the Irish Minister for Social Protection (??) wanted to incentivise vaccination by withholding benefits from families who do not comply. The US has been at the forefront of this type of pressurising of parents. The latest bid, via paediatricians, is to be made possible by means of withholding healthcare from children who are not vaccinated.

Despite the many reports about vaccination side-effects and connections with autism (cases rocketing while vaccination rates soar, the Amish communities who don’t believe in vaccination and have practically no cases of autism etc), including reports of a batch of vaccine which resulted in children contracting meningitis, it seems that the pharmaceutical companies will stop at nothing to impose multiple vaccinations on children. It’s a nice steady little earner – especially if you keep inventing new vaccines. 

More and more children suffer from auto-immune diseases. The powers that be offer no real explanation for this, nor for the epidemic autism figures. Whistleblowers like Dr Andrew Wakefield are swiftly dealt with. Why let side- effect rumours get in the way of a nice steady phenomenal profit?

 No-one’s suggesting that parents should be prevented from vaccinating their children. Freemen believe in sovereignty and choice. That‘s the operative word. Parents must be permitted to choose whether or not they wish to take the risk of vaccination. This is not something that should be left to medics, and others who work so closely with the pharmaceutical companies, to decide and impose. 

The US, Eire, where next? Our government took up the water fluoridation case and was prepared to impose fluoridation on the population. Why? Because a representative of the Fluoridation Society was bullishly recommending it. Fluoridation is an ineffective and outdated method of disposing of toxins. Most countries do not have fluoridated water because it is not effective and the governments see it as morally untenable. However, if our members were so easily duped on that one how easy would it be to persuade our next Health Minister that vaccinations should be imposed on children or pressure brought to bear on parents who don’t comply?

These issues could well arise in the next term of government. If you are in favour of vaccinations no-one would wish to prevent you from obtaining them for your child but please spare a thought for those who differ on this. For instance, those who suffer from auto-immune diseases. Many of us have a family history of auto-immune illness and yet I am not aware of any patient  who has been informed that flu vaccines have contained thimerosal, which is an immune stimulant – something some of us may well wish to avoid. Has anyone ever advised you about the possible side-effects of vaccines and let you read the accompanying leaflet thoroughly before agreeing to accept the vaccine? I doubt it. Every year we hear the same old message about flu vaccines being essential for the elderly and those with chronic respiratory disorders. One size fits all apparently. Does that seem likely? Freedom of choice is essential. However, it seems that our members frequently bow to the medical profession without question. We need members who can think for themselves and who value and respect freedom of choice. If not we can stand our ground.


2 comments on “US paediatricians to withhold medical treatment?

  1. You need to do some more research into Andrew Wakefield. You make some valid points, but referring to him as a “whistleblower” is erroneous and actually goes some way to undermining yr arguments. He was a researcher with a vested financial interest in discrediting the MMR vaccine and a practitioner of bad science and there has been, thus far, no proven link between Autism and the MMR. In fact several of the co-authors of his original paper published this retraction in the Lancet: “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”

    Further, the BMJ said that “Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare … Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC’s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.”

    • Thank you for your interest and comments on this topic – btw. I have no personal axe to grind regarding autism other than the issue of the mainstream media’s lack of balanced material. I’m not sure if you are aware of recent evidence regarding previous investigations into autism and vaccinations which indicate that Dr Wakefield’s findings were independently replicated by another medical research team prior to his own research.
      “These documents reveal that the British Medical Journal has been caught in its own fraud for willfully ignoring this evidence, which was presented to it long before its recent publication of Brian Deer’s article calling Dr Wakefield a fraud.”

      What is of real concern is the lack of dialogue and discussion and the damning condemnation of research without presentation of both sides of the argument. Dr Wakefield has repeatedly made it clear that he was never against vaccines. He felt however that multiple vaccination was inadvisable and supported single vaccinations. He is not alone in his views amongst medical colleagues.

      Having accompanied a child for pre-school vaccinations I have to say I felt physically sick at what seemed to me to be pure bullying. I survived without multiple vaccinations. However, I am convinced that a flu vaccine I was given as an adult was the trigger for a chronic auto-immune disease. But how many doctors would even entertain the thought of this possibility? There is simply no point in pursuing it. Pharma and its accomplices are too mighty to take on. However, my raising the issues of sovereignty and choice as opposed to Orwellian force is something I am able to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s