Barefoot
29-05-09, 05:48 PM
The best defence against this is the unethical vaccine ingredients themselves and the reply to "every child has a right to receive vaccination" is "every child should have the same rights as adults to decline or boycott any commerical products that they or their parents feel to be unethical, contain ingredients they have moral objections to, may harm them and made by companies who they know to have commited fraud, genocide or that runs against their moral or philosophical beliefs.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/compulsory-vax/
Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out.
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: UK Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/2009/03/08/pharma-decide-uk-vaccination/).
Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-
what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and
[I]how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI [U]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 (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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 (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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.’
And:
‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’
The minutes (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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 the any 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 .
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/compulsory-vax/
Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out.
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: UK Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/2009/03/08/pharma-decide-uk-vaccination/).
Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-
what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and
[I]how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI [U]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 (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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 (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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.’
And:
‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’
The minutes (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/Draft_Minutes_18_Feb_2009.pdf) 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 the any 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 .