‘A seven-year-old boy has been taken from his mother to be forcibly given radiation treatment because his doctors believe it’s for the best. Not only do doctors support barbaric treatment, but they believe they have the right to force it on innocent children.’
The loss of rights to our own bodies and to control what is done to our children continues. Neon Roberts, the seven-year-old boy pictured to the left, is about to undergo radiation treatment because his doctors want to do it.
Sadly, Neon has a brain tumor. He has had surgery, but his mother does not want him to be treated with radiation.
His mother ran with Neon, trying to escape from forced treatment. Sadly, though, they were found by police in Sussex, UK.
We don’t know what this child’s future will be. His chances do not look good. Without knowing the particular type of cancer he’s suffering, it’s not possible to state the odds. However, we do know that, even if he does survive, the chances are his life will be irreversibly changed from adverse effects. Children are more susceptible to harm because their nervous systems are not mature. There’s a strong chance of being left with limb weakness, poor balance, and uncontrollable shaking. Epilepsy, blackouts, and chronic headaches are also possible, as is blindness. Intelligence, including short term memory, learning, and logic ability can be harmed.
It’s also possible that years later he will develop loss of appetite, lack of energy, and return and worsening of earlier symptoms. Personality changes years later have also been noted.
Yet, both doctors and the legal system have run amok. They presume to know what’s best for this child, so ordered his mother to hand her son over to them.
Neon’s case is unique because we know about it. That’s only because it was considered so important to find him that the judge ordered his and his mother’s identity to be revealed so it would be easier to find them.
How many other children are forcibly treated with radiation, chemotherapy, or vaccination? We don’t know because that information is hidden from us. All we do know is that Neon, who more than ever needs his mother, has been snatched from her and will shortly undergo a treatment that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy—simply because the hubris of some doctors says that they have the right and a judge supports them.
An extraordinary paper published by a courageous doctor and investigative medical researcher has dug the dirt on 30 years of secret official transcripts of meetings of UK government vaccine committees and the supposedly independent medical “experts” sitting on them with their drug industry connections.
A Freedom of Information Act filing by a doctor in the UK, has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have
1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies
Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US, and many other countries.
No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception. According to the world’s leading drug regulatory authority, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines represent a special category of drugs in that they are generally given to healthy individuals and often to prevent a disease to which an individual may never be exposed. This, according to the FDA, places extra emphasis on vaccine safety.
Universally, regulatory authorities are responsible for ensuring that new vaccines go through proper scientific evaluation before they are approved. An equal responsibility rests on the medical profession to promote vaccinations but only with those vaccines whose safety and efficacy has been demonstrated to be statistically significant. Furthermore, vaccination is a medical intervention and as such, it should be carried out with the full consent of those who are being subjected to it. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable risks and benefits and, where applicable, a description of alternative courses of treatment. In cases where children and infants are involved, full consent
with regards to vaccination should be given by the parents.
Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.
As a result of such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) but also, their own Code of Practice.
This is what everyone has always known but could never prove before now. Pass this information on to others so they can see what goes on in Government health committees behind locked doors.
The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”, and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions Minutes 1986-1992.
In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;
2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;
7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8) Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage.
Dr. Tomlijenovic explains; for instance, how JCVI has known since as early as 1981 that the measles vaccine, which is part of the government’s official vaccine schedule, is linked to long-term neurological damage and death. She also outlines, with full citations, evidence showing that JCVI has long been aware that many of scheduled vaccines cause permanent brain damage in children, but have continued to promote those vaccines anyway.
Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.
A Freedom of Information Act filing in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.
The US CDC is an unreliable source of information. They constantly grossly exaggerate death and disease figures to promote vaccines. The UK Department of Health does the same. Both for example have claimed flu causes thousands of deaths each year but in fact it does not. They do that to promote the flu vaccine, which the international Cochrane Collaboration, which publishes medical research into the accuracy of claims like that, has shown that the flu vaccine is not effective.
On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document “non-existent.”
A short summary of the most important arguments that support NON-VACCINATION:
Vaccines contain a combination of at least 39 different highly toxic metals, cancer causing substances, toxic chemicals, live and genetically modified viruses, bacteria, contaminated serum containing animal viruses and foreign genetic material, extremely toxic de-contaminants and adjuvants, untested antibiotics, none of which can be injected without causing any harm. Vaccine contaminants have included bovine (cow), avian (chicken) and monkey viruses and bacteria such as streptococcus in the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine [Pediatrics, Vol. 75, No. 2, Feb 1985] and Serratia marcesens in the influenza vaccines [2004 influenza season].
There is no scientific study to determine whether vaccines have really prevented diseases. Rather disease graphs show vaccines have been introduced at the end of epidemics when the disease was already in its last stages. In case of Small Pox the vaccine actually caused a great spurt in the incidence of disease before public outcry led to its withdrawal.
There are no long-term studies on vaccine safety. Very short-term tests are carried out where the vaccinated subjects are checked against another group who are given another vaccine. Technically the tests should be carried out against a non-vaccinated group. No one really knows what protocols are followed at such industry based or industry sponsored trials.
The mercury, aluminum and live viruses in vaccines may be behind the huge epidemic of autism (1 in 110 in the USA), a fact that has been admitted by the US Vaccine Court. About 83 suspected cases of vaccines causing autism have been awarded compensation.
Both the Small Pox and the Oral Polio Vaccine are made from monkey serum. This serum has helped many monkey viruses to enter the human blood stream. Out of these, the only researched virus, SV 40, has been found to be cancerous.These viruses continue to be in the vaccines. The presence of SV 40 in various human cancers has been demonstrated. Today it is known that the virus is being passed on to future generations as its presence in the mother’s milk and human sperms has been established.
The number of polio cases was declining before the widespread administration of the Salk vaccine. Cases which had previously been reported as polio are now reported as meningitis. The risk of contracting polio from the live virus vaccine is greater than the risk of acquiring the disease from naturally occurring viruses.
Many doctors argue that diseases during childhood are due to the body exercising its immune system. Suppressing these diseases causes the immune system to remain undeveloped causing the various autoimmune disorders in adults like diabetes and arthritis that have become epidemics today.
Vaccines suppress the natural immunity and the body does not have natural antibodies anymore. The mother’s milk therefore does not contain natural antibodies and can no longer protect the child against illnesses.
In the USA vaccine adverse effects are recorded and the Government offers compensation of millions of dollars to victims (the most recent case in its Vaccine Court may have received upto $200 million in damages). The courts in the USA have paid nearly $ 2 billion in damages so far.
Vaccines try to create humoral (blood related immunity) whereas it has been found that immunity is developed at various levels: humoral, cellular, and organ specific. We still do not know enough about the human immune system and therefore should not interfere with it.
In addition to childhood vaccination, new “hypes” like the Swine Flu, Bird Flu, Gardasil for HPV virus and the annual flu vaccine are continuing the to damage people’s health all throughout their life. Yves Thomas, the head of the National Influenza Centre in Geneva said that, “The debate and the arguments that surrounded the A(H1N1) influenza virus two years ago have sharpened public mistrust toward the seasonal flu vaccine.” In 2010, the World Health Organisation (WHO) was accused of dramatizing worldwide influenza cases in order to result in much higher vaccine sales since many countries had signed contracts with a stipulation to automatically buy vaccines when the WHO gave the highest alert level.
A Few Questions To Ask Your Doctor
Don’t let yourself intimidated by medical doctors, they are NOT Gods and they surely are misinformed, many of them are corrupted or don’t want to acknowledge the dangers of vaccines. Most schools will offer you a waiver if you ask for one. There is NO law that can deny you that. Exemptions are typically for people who have compromised immune systems, allergies to the components used in vaccinations, or strongly held objections. All states but West Virginia and Mississippi allow religious exemptions, and twenty states allow parents to cite personal or philosophical objections. Get yourself educated on the matter, it’s about the life of your child!
ASK QUESTIONS like these:
1. What are the serious negative health effects that these vaccines can generate? Are the risks worth the benefits?
2. Dr. Michel Odent has linked asthma to the whooping cough vaccine. Have you read his research? What do you think?
3. Professor Wakefield (UK) has linked autism and Chrones disease to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. What do you think? What evidence do you have to back up your opinions?
4. Why is the same dose of vaccines given to a two month old as for a 5 year old?
5. Are you aware that Japan changed the start time for vaccinating from 3 months to two years and straight away their SIDS rate plummeted?
6. Do you believe in herd immunity? If so, how is it that 98% of U.S.A. children are vaccinated yet they still have outbreaks of these diseases?
7. Most diseases were already 90% gone before any vaccines were introduced. If this is so, how can vaccines be applauded for diseases ceasing, especially when there were no vaccines for some diseases like bubonic plague and scarlet fever?
8. How can the Tetanus vaccine induce immunity, when contracting the disease naturally does not give immunity?
9. If the so-called diphtheria vaccine, which is in fact a toxoid, works against the toxin produced by the bacteria, and not against the bacteria itself, then how did this “vaccine” help in the decline in diphtheria?
To read and download the full 45 page report and its evidence by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD see the link below.
HSLDA.org, Mar. 27, 2012 Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.
Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a state-affiliated hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.
As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.” Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”
Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”
Then the hospital demanded that they give Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie. The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing … The social worker left the room and called the police. Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim. The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done. The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”
Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in a nearby parking lot. You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.