Currently NHS patients can – in most circumstances – choose their GP or the hospital they’re referred to. And personal budgets are giving people more choice and control over their social care and support arrangements.
We think that introducing more choice will help people get the care and support that’s right for them, and make services more responsive to their needs. And we want everyone to have access to the information and advice they need to make the right choices for them.
Informed choice is the process of choosing from options based on accurate information and knowledge. These options are developed by a partnership consisting of the consumer and the counselor that will empower the consumer to make decisions resulting in a successful vocational rehabilitation outcome. [CJF emphasis added]
According to the HealthKnowledge website, there are several aspects to choice, e.g., autonomous choice, informed choice, etc.:
According to The Free Medical Dictionary by Farlex, their definition is:
Informed choice Patients rights A decision by a Pt about a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that is based on choice, which requires that the decision be voluntary and that the Pt has the capacity for choice, which rests on 3 elements: possession of a set of values and goals; ability to understand information and communicate decisions; ability to reason and deliberate.
Now, let’s look at the American Medical Association’s “Principles of Medical Ethics” that puts forth how physicians should interact with patients.
Under Principles of Medical Ethics, we find this important principle in “Opinion 8.08: Informed Consent”:
The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice. The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment. [….] Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, … [….]Physicians should sensitively and respectfully disclose all relevant medical information to patients.
Clearly, the AMA supports the patient’s right of self-decision, self-determination, or informed consent! What doesn’t everyone else understand? Especially practicing physicians and the feds.
Evidently, pediatricians, family physicians and medical personnel do not give pertinent toxin information regarding vaccines that would enable real informed choice, specifically with regard to the adverse events, contraindications, neurotoxins and other toxins in vaccines as published on vaccine package inserts. That obvious lack of transparency probably is a bona fide breach of trust and ethics, in this writer’s opinion.
All medical and healthcare personnel inform healthcare consumers that vaccines are safe, which literally is not the case, since every vaccine package insert unquestionably states that the vaccine has not been tested for its capability to cause cancer, birth defects, or interfere with fertility or reproduction. With such information glaringly lacking and not provided, no individual can make an informed choice about any vaccine!
Furthermore, one of the ingredients in vaccines, polysorbate 80, is scientifically known to cause the following:
Clinical studies have shown darbepoetin alfa (polysorbate 80) to increase the risk of serious side effects (eg, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, heart failure) and death in some cases. It has also been shown to shorten overall survival and/or increase the risk of tumor growth or recurrence in patients with certain types of cancer. Talk with your doctor about the risks and benefits of using darbepoetin alfa (polysorbate 80).
Polysorbate-80 is used in pharmacology to assist in the delivery of certain drugs or chemotherapeutic agents across the blood-brain-barrier. What viral, bacterial, yeast, heavy metal or other vaccine containing ingredient need to pass into the brains of our children? Do they belong in the brain? Is that part of the needed immune response to protect our children from disease? Do vaccine materials pass across the blood-brain barrier with the help of Polysorbate-80? If so, are there complications from being in the brains of our children? Is this another connection to help us get an understanding of why 1 in 150 children have autism, or 1 in 6 children has developmental/learning disabilities?
Note that when Dr. Palevsky made that remark, autism was 1 in 150. A few years later, and as of the latest statistics, autism in the USA is 1 in 68!
About 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network.
In the late 1970s, autism was 1 in 10,000. Will it soon become 1 in 2?
Do you think parents, or anyone for that matter, would give their informed consent knowing that some ingredients in vaccines were able to breach the blood brain barrier? Would you give your consent?
It’s obvious, medical personnel don’t provide “enough information to enable an informed choice” especially about polysorbate 80 in these vaccines: DTaP (Infarix, Tripedia); DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix); DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit); HPV (Gardasil); Influenza (Fluarix); Rotavirus (RotaTeq); Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix).
HHS/CDC/FDA should make vaccine makers remove polysorbate 80 from vaccines or else make certain each individual, who voluntarily chooses to receive vaccines containing polysorbate 80, gets a written paper stating polysorbate 80, or any of its proprietary trade names, can “increase the risk of serious side effects (eg, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, heart failure) and death in some cases.” Then, that would be informed choice, if and when a person freely subscribes to the vaccine for themselves or their children. Currently, thousands, if not millions of people are either: 1) coerced, 2) threatened with no medical care services, or 3) made to take vaccines under much duress. Legally, duress is never proper!
Furthermore, pro-vaccination parents, who feel non-vaccinating parents are ‘child abusers’, [Petition to have non-vaccinating parents charged with child abuse] need to examine their own apparent ignorance in allowing any or all of the following ingredients in vaccines:
Ovalbumin, human serum albumin, bovine albumin, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, aluminum phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate, amino acids, ammonium sulfate, amphotericin B, ascorbic acid, bactopeptone, beta propiolactone, benzethonium chloride, brilliant green dye, calcium carbonate, calcium chloride, chlortetracycline, cystine, dextran, DNA, Dulbecco’s modified Eagle Medium, ethylenediamine- tetraacetic acid sodium, egg protein, ferric (III) nitrate, formaldehyde-formalin, gelatin, genetamicin, glucose glutamine, glutaraldehyde, glycerin, glycine, histidine, hydrochloric acid, hydrocortisone, lactose, magnesium stearate, magnesium sulfate, monosodium glutamate, mouse serum protein, MRC-5 cellular protein (aborted fetal cell line), neomycin, phenol, phenol red, 2-phenoxyethanol, phosphate buffers (eg. Disodium, monosodium, potassium, sodium dihydrogenphosphate), polydimethylsilozone, polymyxin B, polyoxyethylene9-10 nonyl phenol, polyoxyethelated octyl phenol, polysorbate 20, polysorbate 80, potassium chloride, potassium glutamate, bovine calf serum, sodium acetate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, sodium deoxycholate, sodium hydrogenocarbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium phosphate, sodium pyruvate, sorbitol, streptomycin, sucrose, Thimerosal [49.6% ethylmercury], tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, tyrosine, urea, vitamins unspecified, xanthan, and yeast protein that are used to manufacture vaccines grown on the following production media: bovine protein, calf skin, chick kidney cells, chicken embryo, Cohen-Wheeler modified (pertussis components), human diploid tissue culture-MRC-5 and WI-38 [aborted fetal cell lines], Lathan medium derived from bovine casein, Linggoud-Fenton medium containing extract, Medium 199 (including amino acids, vitamins, sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, human albumin, fetal bovine serum), minimum essential medium (including amino acids, vitamins, fetal bovine serum, human albumin), monkey kidney tissue culture-Vero (Vervet or African green monkeys), mouse brain culture, Mueller-Hinton agar medium, Mueller-Miller medium, Puziss-Wright medium 1095, Rhesus [monkey] fetal lung tissue culture, Stainer-Scholte medium, soy peptone broth [probable GMO product], synthetic/semi-synthetic [what that exactly is, is not defined! Nanoparticles?], Watson-Scherp medium, yeast or yeast extract (typically Saccharomyces cerevisiae)
Source: U.S. CDC PinkBook Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary (2011) pp. E-1 to E-7 as cited in Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines pp. 27-33
to be injected into their infants, toddlers, and teenage children.
Back on September 20, 2010 when I was writing for VacTruth.com, I wrote this about Dr. Nancy Snyderman’s apparently mis-spoken remark about vaccine ingredients on the Today Show:
Doctor Nancy Snyderman, a very attractive, gregarious and outgoing physician, has real TV presence in more ways than one. Friday, September 17, 2010 Dr. Snyderman appeared on the MSNBC Today Show and promoted vaccines in a segment titled Vaccines 101 in a manner to which I personally took umbrage, especially when she said there was a small amount of medicine in the shot and the “rest is water or salt water.”
Here’s the video of that Today Show http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36691058/vp/39211550#39211550 where at 2 minutes 25 seconds Dr. Snyderman starts with her remarks about vaccines “rest is water or salt water”. Not so, according to the CDC! If all MDs are as equally informed about vaccines as Dr. Snyderman, well, I guess there’s a lot of important information about vaccines that is “missing in action.”
Coincidentally, in using Internet search engines to locate that Today Show with Dr. Snyderman, I couldn’t find it. Apparently, it seems to be ‘hidden’ somewhere not easily accessible. Luckily, I was able to retrieve it from my 2010 article at VacTruth.com.
Therefore, how can HHS/CDC/FDA, state, county, and municipal health agencies morally, ethically, legally, and medically expect anyone to submit to such medical quackery—injecting numerous known toxins into a body while ‘seemingly’ not knowing about those chemicals’ detrimental health effects published in the medical literature?
Since no testing apparently has been done on the safety or health effects of synergism between any combination of the above ingredients in any or all vaccines or combinations thereof, what kind of pseudo-scientific ‘pig-in-a-poke’ are vaccinating parents buying into when allowing toxins, chemicals and other things like DNA, antibiotics, aborted fetal cell lines, etc. being injected into their children in numerous doses at one time—up to 9 vaccines given at one ‘well baby’ office visit? Who really are the child abusers? Certainly it’s not those parents wanting to protect their children from vaccines that have not been fully tested for safety, i.e., Cancer, teratogenicity, and infertility/reproduction impairment.
Plainly, the vaccination program as practiced today, especially in the USA, is nothing short of breaching an individual’s right to be secure in his or her bodily person. Even though the USA has no constitutional right proclaiming a person’s right to health or its care, the senior author of “Constitutional rights to health, public health and medical care: The status of health protections in 191 countries,” Jody Heymann, MD, PhD, had this to say:
The global recognition of a right to health is a powerful step in guaranteeing health as a fundamental human right for all people, but it is important to ensure this moral right moves from the philosophical to the practical. That will require a kind of transparency and accountability where the public can readily access information on which countries are implementing these guarantees.
THAT is the crux of the matter: health and how each individual wants to protect him- or herself and his/her children, is not the government’s decision. Government should be there to provide services, not mandate corporate-vested-interests’ products are forced into consumers’ bodies based in a ‘faith-like’ zealot’s zeal. When the Colonies were rebelling against King George III and forming under the guidance of our country’s Founding Fathers and Mothers, Dr. Benjamin Rush, MD, made this prophetic statement:
Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.
Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic.
Apparently, we are living in the times that Dr. Rush was able to foresee. The Bastille  was a notorious prison in France during the French Revolution [1788-89]. Need I say more?
With all the rabblerousing about forced vaccinations, it seems the Bastille may arrive in the USA in the 21st century, especially if we don’t stand up for our inalienable, Creator-given rights to keeping and preserving our most valuable possession: one’s health—nothing is more personal than that.
We need a Health Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. From 1985 to 1990 I worked in trying to get that amendment passed. Very few thought it was necessary, as the USA was supposed to be a free country, so it didn’t get much traction in Congress.
Boy, wouldn’t you say they were wrong? Historically though, we need to remember this from our country’s founding days:
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Do you think we have it within us to keep it as a republic in this day and age?
Information on overdetection of breast cancer provided within a decision aid increased the number of women making an informed choice about breast screening. Becoming better informed might mean women are less likely to choose screening.
Please Read this Article at NaturalBlaze.com
Leave a Reply