Defeating COVID vaccine mandates - a pyrrhic victory?

This is the way.

What victories have been had by the hoi polloi as a result of the COVID debacle?

“We have beaten vaccine mandates!” some will claim. This is not true. COVID mandates took effect in multiple direct and indirect forms and have had permanent effects that will never be undone, even if that form of mandate has been “beaten”. Furthermore, what has been “beaten” is only one version of the way a society can be and is practically mandated or coerced into medical treatment of questionable value.

Next generation “solutions” that deal with the challenges against COVID mandates have been created and are being deployed. Changes to WHO International Health Regulations and the abrogation of national power to them are just one evolution of national vaccine mandates.

Continuous approval of new gene therapies as vaccines that enter a nation’s mandatory or recommended child vaccination schedule is another method of sidestepping an overt adult mandate. A complete failure or unwillingness of legal systems to recognise, prevent and deal with the illegal situations is another that was baked in from the start and still persists, which compounds these problems.

Another way of keeping the herd moving on the COVID trajectory involves employing a pathogen with a higher Infection Fatality Ratio and/or infectiousness than SARS-CoV-2 to drive more fear that results in the desired conformant behaviour. This way turns a top down mandate into something that looks more like bottom up demand i.e. “save us all with treatment for us all” instead of “you must all be saved and save each other with this treatment”. The outcome in both cases is the same: bodily autonomy, medical ethics and principles, and pre-existing law gets tossed when fearmongering enables the abrogation of scrutiny, responsibility, accountability, rational thought and free choice. This way is being ramped up and it was in effect in COVID, despite the known low IFR. People were scared into conformance.

Yet another way is to use the total manufacturing of both consent and perception to influence ignorant patients from the outset, with the express intent of achieving a certain and predictable behaviour in the population. This way is present now and has been present since long before COVID, MERS or SARS, all three of which were steps in a genetically engineered social control programme involving Ralph Baric and his government and corporate sponsors. This way is the more powerful, subtler and long standing, defacto mandate that the UK populace has missed and is still missing. This way has been in place for decades and we’ve not paid attention to it because it is so powerful. COVID hasn’t helped us see it or question it.

This is the way

Regarding medical mandates, there are several questions that must be considered together:

• Can general or specific medical treatment be mandated and therefore override individual medical bodily autonomy? Should this be possible? If so, why, when and how? What should or could be the consequences of refusal?

• Can medical treatment be effectively mandated, even if an official mandate does not exist? If so, why, when and how, and with what consequences of refusal?

• How does the nature and presentation of a given medical treatment affect its perception, administration and acceptance, whether or not a mandate exists?

The answer to the above questions is not “No, under the x, y, z laws and codes governing medical treatment, practise and ethics in nation A, medical treatment in general and in specific cases can’t be mandated, and it is difficult to manipulate patients to have treatment.”

The short-ish answer to the above questions for all nations that claim to conform to the Nuremberg code, the Declaration of Helsinki, global medical ethics and bodily autonomy is:

“Medical treatment can be and is directly and indirectly mandated by nations within standing laws and ethics, even when treatment is not actually and legally mandatory. The methods by which this is done can and do directly contradict standing legislation, ethics and principles, without any practical, meaningful penalties for the state or any of its agents. Patients are extremely easy to manipulate through simple and complex means.”

This is where we are today and where we have been for a long time. The political answer is the first, wrong answer that does not reflect reality. The second answer is the one that reflects realpolitik.

Like it or not, in realpolitik, objectives that seem to be outlawed and disdained are wholly achievable with zero consequence and high profits.

Jikkyleaks’ example - Hepatitis B on the UK Vaccination Schedule

Jikkyleaks highlights that within the issues of neonatal vaccination, in the UK the Hepatitis B (HBV) vaccine (based on inactivated pathogen) is practically mandatory for all children. Three doses are “recommended” by the NHS for a child at 8, 12, and 16 weeks of age, if they were born on or after August 1, 2017. Why?

The NHS itself describes people at risk of contracting Hep B as:

If the expectant mother does not have Hep B and the infant is not in one of the above categories (by definition they are not), exactly how, asks Jikkyleaks, can an infant, child, teenager, or adult not in the above risk groups be at risk of contracting HBV? Therefore, why would anyone seek to dose a baby with three shots of a HBV vaccine by the time they are just 16 weeks old? How many parents stop to think and ask these questions? How many understand the complete risk benefit picture and how to evaluate it? How many understand that they don’t have to accept what the NHS wants to do to their baby?

Take a moment to read Jikkyleak’s full thread on the above, which encapsulates more than just HBV vaccination:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1685468279077244930.html

According the UK Health & Safety Executive’s Biosafety information:

…hepatitis B (HBV) infection is endemic in the UK… The UK is a low prevalence area, with a carriage rate of 0.1-0.5%, although rates may vary between individual communities.

The likelihood of a patient developing chronic infection is inversely related to age at the time of infection. Chronic infection occurs in at least 90% of infected neonates, 25% of children aged 1-5 years and 5% or less of adults.

The UK falls into the lowest category of prevalence for HBV, as determined by the World Health Organisation. The prevalence rate is believed to be between 0.1% and 0.5% of the UK population. HBV infections are usually acquired in adulthood, principally resulting from sexual activity or injecting drug use. Reports of acute HBV infection have fallen sharply, which is thought to be mainly due to a decline in cases of intravenous drug misuse and possibly changes in behaviour in response to the risks from the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The effect of risk reduction programmes, which include the use of needle exchange centres and the immunisation of injecting drug users (IDU), is also likely to have contributed to this decline. However, data from the Health Protection Agency indicates that the frequency of chronic infection is increasing in the UK because of migration from high prevalence areas of the world.

Take a moment to process all of the above in the context of the NHS three jab neonate HBV vaccine schedule.

The UK HSE is saying:

• HBV almost doesn’t exist in the UK, yet we will tell you it’s endemic, which means: “if a disease or illness is endemic in a place, it is frequently found among the people who live there” (Collins dictionary); “especially of a disease or a condition, regularly found and very common among a particular group or in a particular area” (Cambridge dictionary).

• Having told you HBV is endemic in the UK, we will then tell you that in the UK, HBV is at the lowest possible recorded levels of prevalence by WHO standards, thereby undermining the HSE’s common language use of “endemic”.

• The younger you are when infected with HBV, the more susceptible to the worst effects of a HBV infection you are, but this is rendered moot by no neonates, children or teenagers having HBV.

• The people who get infected with HBV are not children or neonates. They are adults engaging in behaviours, practises and/or lifestyles, or in environments that increase their risk of contracting an incredibly low prevalence disease.

• The only children/neonates who might get HBV are a tiny minority:

  • whose mother, during their pregnancy, was HBV positive; or

  • who might somehow be exposed to infection risk in ways that are largely very rare in a normal life that does not expose the neonate or child to forms of abuse and extremes of poor hygiene and risk-on environments or behaviours.

If the above was not enough to call into question, as Jikkyleaks does, why UK neonates should be practically mandatorily vaccinated with a three dose HBV vaccine by 16 weeks old, then there is another set of circumstances that does.

A large number of the UK populace has never been HBV vaccinated and would not be as adults, yet adult HBV vaccination is available and possible. Were one of these unvaccinated people to take certain positions in the NHS (exposure to potentially infected blood and bodily fluids/excretions) they would be subject to mandated, adult HBV vaccination (NHS example, see section 5.3 Hepatitis B). This situation tells us, quite clearly:

• neonatal HBV vaccination is not a watershed moment, after which the ability to be HBV vaccinated disappears (contrast with Rotavirus A vaccination, below);

• if no neonates, children or teenagers have or contract HBV, the severity of childhood infection is a moot point;

• if neonates, infants, children and teenagers don’t get HBV and 99.5%+ of adults don’t get it, the HBV vaccine doesn’t provide greater benefit to the vast majority of people compared to behavioural choices that seem to “protect” all of the unvaccinated population, as reflected by the stable, super low prevalence of UK HBV;

• for those adults who have been HBV vaccinated e.g. medics, there may be provable and valuable efficacy in that risk category, but this is not most people nor a standard risk profile;

• despite no official, population-wide UK HBV vaccine mandate ever existing and all of the significant risk factors only applying to a minority of adults, the UK’s prevalence of HBV is as low as it can be for any nation even before the NHS recommended all neonates be HBV vaccinated.

The above is the HBV situation as it exists today in the UK and as it has existed in the UK for considerable time.

Therefore, the HBV vaccination of all neonates born on or after August 1, 2017 has literally zero impact on any UK HBV statistic past or present. If the UK’s HBV situation remains homogenous then the maturation of these HBV vaccinated children cannot have, eventually, more than a 0.1 - 0.5% impact on that national situation, in extremis. Of course, their maximum impact will be less than this unless and until they represent the vast majority of UK adults. In order to do that, they would have to have significantly displaced all unvaccinated persons (comprising all UK citizens from birth and all immigrants/transients) and then true prevalence would have to be accurately known. This is a multi-generational effect for a disease:

• that is hard to catch and already close to non-existent in the UK without HBV vaccination;

• about which the NHS states “usually clears up on its own without treatment. You may be offered medicine to help with the symptoms, such as painkillers or medicines to stop you feeling sick. Your GP will refer you to see a liver specialist who will check how well your liver is working. If hepatitis B lasts for over 6 months it is called long-term (chronic) hepatitis B. It is usually treated with antivirals and medicine to help relieve symptoms such as itchiness, pain, and sickness. You will also need to see a liver specialist for regular check-ups.”

HBV neonatal vaccination: What’s the f-ing point?

So, what is the point in a three jab, neonate HBV vaccination schedule on the NHS that, as a parent of a new born, you may well accept without question?

There isn’t one.

As the above shows, the logic, justification, evidence and explanations provided by the UK government about just the HBV vaccine are nonsensical, illogical, self-contradictory, unjustified and not based on solid scientific or medical rationale.

In the case of HBV, there is another, deeper, darker question that goes unasked and unanswered.

Who exactly is exposing neonates, infants, children or teenagers to a risk of a disease transmitted by sex, drug use, or bodily fluid exposure, and why does the UK government think this situation should be dealt with a the neonate level when there is apparently zero prevalence in 99.5% of the entire UK population?

Do you think that HBV is the only example that, on closer examination, starts to fall apart at the seams?

A simple question that leads to “nothing”

Consider someone who was born up to 1980 in the UK. According to the UK government’s Vaccination timeline table from 1796 to present, they may have received some or all of the following vaccinations:

• Diphtheria

• BCG

• Inactivated polio

• Pertussis

• Tetanus

• Live oral polio

• Measles

• Rubella

All of them were single dose treatments. Although tetanus is a 10-year booster, it was not enforced or policed in any way (today it is claimed that 5 shots from 6 weeks old are required to be “fully vaccinated”). If an unvaccinated person was known to have contracted and survived any of the above, they would not have been subsequently vaccinated due to their resultant natural immunity. This principle is still in force in the NHS today. For example, if one became infected with bacterial meningitis, was treated with antibiotics and survived, the NHS would not subsequently vaccinate that person with any available, relevant meningitis vaccine because resultant natural immunity is recognised.

If the person had travelled to an appropriate country e.g. Brazil, they may have elected to have had a yellow fever vaccine. In practise, this “requirement” is poorly enforced and policed. Just going to Brazil doesn’t mean one’s risk of contracting yellow fever becomes so high that mandatory vaccination is justified. That the Brazilian border (and others) do not necessarily police the supposed requirement tells you that it cannot be a hard, fast and totally necessary requirement.

Regarding a UK citizen born up to 1980, the simple question is:

• How can they have had so few vaccinations by today’s standards, and yet they are still alive and healthy, without having followed today’s UK vaccination schedule?

Now consider today’s UK vaccination schedule and look at the age from which multiple vaccinations starts:

UK immunisation schedule (Feb 2022)

Now, ask yourself another, simple question:

• Amongst all UK citizens born up to 1980, how many have been seriously harmed or killed by:

  • MenB

  • Rotavirus

  • MenC

  • Influenza

  • PPV

  • HPV

  • Pneumococcal infections

  • Shingles

These people born up to 1980 can be assumed to have not been vaccinated against any of the above. In effect, those people did “nothing” about these pathogens and yet the majority have either avoided or survived these pathogens and the associated diseases.

This is a deliberately simplistic question that drives to a simple point: if you can have had a pre-1980 UK vaccine schedule and live a healthy enough, happy life and die at the average age of 79 (males) and 84 (females), why do people born today need any more vaccines than the people born up to 1980?

It is not a question of survival.

It is not a question of epidemic suppression or avoidance. None of the above have been national or global epidemics that the Council of Foreign Relations recognises.

The strange case of Rotavirus

According to the University of Oxford’s Oxford Vaccine Group that has vested interests in vaccine development including COVID gene therapies (our bold):

There are five different types of the virus, known as A, B, C, D, and E. Type A causes 90% of infections in humans. The vaccine used in the UK gives protection against type A infections.

Although rotavirus is not often life-threatening in the UK, it caused a huge amount of illness before a vaccine was introduced in 2013. Each year in the UK:

• 130,000 children were so unwell with rotavirus that they needed to see their GP

• 36,000 children with rotavirus were taken to A&E

• Around 12,700 of these were admitted to hospital, usually because of severe dehydration

• It is thought that three or four children died each year in the UK as a result of rotavirus infection, and some people have given higher estimates

• Death was due to severe dehydration caused by diarrhoea and vomiting

The graph below shows what has happened in the UK since the rotavirus vaccine was introduced in July 2013. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, the number of reported cases of rotavirus fell by over 70% compared to previous years. Rotavirus infections tend to peak between January and March, but in these years there was no significant peak in cases.

For more information see the 2015 study showing the rapid decline in rotavirus infection from Public Health England and Imperial College London.

Consider the underlying meaning of the above statements.

• Rotavirus isn’t life threatening.

• “huge amount of illness” is not properly quantified or defined in meaningful relative and absolute terms.

• “130,000 children were so unwell with rotavirus that they needed to see their GP” and “36,000 children with rotavirus were taken to A&E” obfuscates the fact that, according to the CDC and the NHS:

  • “There is no specific medicine to treat rotavirus infection, but your doctor may recommend medicine to treat the symptoms. Antibiotics will not help because they fight bacteria not viruses.” (CDC)

  • “Diarrhoea and vomiting are common in adults, children and babies. They're often caused by a stomach bug and should stop in a few days (1-2 and 5-7 respectively). The advice is the same if you have diarrhoea and vomiting together or separately.”

• Only 12,700 children were admitted to hospital for severe dehydration, a symptom of rotavirus infection, so were treated for that symptom. They were not directly treated for the infection.

• Three or four guessed deaths (no certainty is evidenced) is zero bound in a currently ~700,000 yearly live birth rate and ~67m population.

• These speculated deaths were due to severe dehydration and vomiting, both of which are treatable symptoms and practically, fully survivable.

• The peak of the charted data shows that 16,000 lab confirmed cases occurred in the whole England and Wales population of ~56m in 2016. That’s 0.03%.

• No explanation of factors that are known to have contributed to the charted decline in Rotavirus lab cases is given, but the page implies it is solely due to the introduction of a Rotavirus A vaccine. More nuanced discussion in a single study is linked to, but it is not definitive.

Let’s boil down what Oxford Vaccine Group is really saying.

1. Rotavirus infection is endemic, not treatable, is practically entirely survivable and has treatable symptoms that last 7 days at most for anyone.

2. In a given year, of the 130,000 children who were taken to see a GP for diarrhoea and vomiting, only 9.76% were admitted to hospital for medical support to deal with only the treatable symptoms (diarrhoea and vomiting) of Rotavirus A -E infection.

3. 90.24% of the children taken to see a GP in a given year did not need to be taken to a GP because the GP could not in any way treat the child better than a non-medic could. Parental education of diarrhoea and vomiting and their treatments (oral rehydration) would have sufficed in all but 9.76% of those cases. Given that oral rehydration is the most common “medical” treatment for diarrhoea and vomiting (even if using a specific rehydration formula) it is still within a parent’s ability to deliver such a treatment.

4. In 2020 there were approximately 12m people aged 0-14 in the UK, with circa 700,000 yearly live births. Rotavirus, therefore, only presented:

   1. 1.81% of a years’ worth of live births with an issue justifying a GP appointment; and

   2. 0.1% of the 2020 0-14 population with an issue justifying a GP appointment; where

   3. the medical treatment is likely to comprise only oral, or in extremis, NG or IV rehydration (NICE care pathway) in the yearly 0.1% of the 0-14 population requiring medical attention.

5. No one dies from Rotavirus A-E.

Put another way, as any UK parent and most adults know from personal experience, gastroenteritis and/or diarrhoea and vomiting in general is a fact of both childhood and adulthood, and it is generally not fatal. In the case of Rotavirus A-E in the UK, it is definitely not fatal, untreatable and of little to no lasting consequence. Surviving infection will provide proven natural immunity. All of this is proven by the UK populace who have never received a Rotavirus A vaccine and not died or been significantly harmed by it in any setting.

All of the above would have us believe that it is financially and medically worthwhile vaccinating 700,000 children per year against Rotavirus, when the vast majority of symptomatic infections are directly untreatable, always rapidly resolve naturally and are symptomatically treatable with simple oral hydration by non-medically qualified persons.

Given all of this, what does the NHS say when we ask, “What’s the f-ing point?”

Of course, the NHS does not provides a good, clear answer, when one looks at everything the NHS tells parents. Consider these key excerpts from NHS patient information (our bold):

Why can older babies not have the rotavirus vaccine?

The oral vaccine is only licensed for infants up to 24 weeks of age. Older children have very often already had a rotavirus infection, so there is no point in vaccinating them.

Also, as they get older, some babies get a condition that causes a blockage in their intestines, called intussusception, though this is rare. It's extremely rare before 12 weeks, and most cases happen between 5 and 12 months old.

There's a very small chance (between 1 and 6 in every 100,000 babies vaccinated) that the first dose of the vaccine might also cause this blockage to develop.

To reduce the risk of this happening, the first dose of the vaccine should not be given to babies older than 15 weeks of age.

Which babies should have the rotavirus vaccine?

The rotavirus oral vaccine is a routine childhood vaccination for babies aged 8 weeks and 12 weeks.

The rotavirus vaccination is only suitable for young babies. The first dose cannot be given any later than 15 weeks and the second dose no later than 24 weeks. Babies can only have the second dose if they had their first dose before 15 weeks.

Which babies should not have the rotavirus vaccine?

The rotavirus vaccine should not be given to babies:

• who are more than 15 weeks old and have not had a 1st dose

• who have had a 1st dose but are more than 24 weeks old – they cannot have a 2nd dose after 24 weeks

• whose mothers took certain medicines that can make you more likely to get infections during pregnancy

• who have had a severe reaction (including an anaphylactic reaction) to a previous dose of any of the ingredients in the vaccine

Speak to a GP first if your baby has any of the following long-term conditions:

• a history of intussusception (a disorder of the intestines)

• problems with their gastrointestinal tract that could lead to intussusception

• rare problems that run in families such as fructose intolerance, glucose-galactose malabsorption or sucrase-isomaltase insufficiency

How long will the rotavirus vaccination protect my baby for?

We do not know for sure, but clinical trials have shown that 2 doses of the vaccine protect for several years.

Can I opt out if I wish?

Yes. No one can force you to have your baby vaccinated against rotavirus infection, but the evidence suggests that it's in the best interests of your child.

Do I need to take special care when changing my baby's nappy after rotavirus vaccination?

Yes. Because the vaccine is given to your baby by mouth, it's possible that the virus in the vaccine will pass through your baby's gut and be picked up by whoever changes their nappy.

The vaccine contains a weakened form of the rotavirus, so traces of it in a baby's nappy will not harm healthy people.

However, it could be a risk for people with a severely weakened immune system (such as anyone having chemotherapy).

As a precaution, anyone in close contact with recently vaccinated babies should take special care with personal hygiene for 2 weeks following vaccination, including washing their hands carefully after changing the baby's nappy.

Will the rotavirus vaccination stop my baby getting any sickness and diarrhoea?

No. Rotavirus is not the only cause of sickness and diarrhoea in babies, so some may still become unwell. However, around 8 out of 10 babies who have the vaccine will be protected from severe vomiting and diarrhoea caused by rotavirus.

The more babies who have the vaccine, the more difficult it will be for the virus to spread.

Side effects

Like all vaccines, the rotavirus vaccine can cause side effects, but they're usually mild and do not last long.

Babies who have the vaccine can sometimes become restless and irritable, and some may develop mild diarrhoea.

…approximately 1 in 1 million [chance] of the rotavirus vaccine causing anaphylaxis.

1-6/100,000 chance of a rare gut disorder called intussusception. This causes a blockage in the intestine. If this happens, contact your doctor immediately.

As with all vaccines, a few babies will have side effects, such as diarrhoea, although they're usually mild and do not last long. Most babies will not have any problems at all.

Also, bear in mind that diarrhoea and vomiting in babies is common and may be unrelated to the vaccine.

A baby can get rotavirus infection after being vaccinated, but this is uncommon, and the illness is usually milder than it would have been if they had not been vaccinated.

See a GP if your baby is very unwell or the illness is lasting a long time, or if you're concerned in any way about their health after the vaccination.

The above information begins to demonstrate highly questionable logic.

Rotavirus A vaccine is only licensed for infants below 24 weeks because:

• by the upper age, they’ve probably had Rotavirus A, survived it and acquired natural immunity; and

• the vaccine itself carries risks of causing serious (if rare) complications that sufficiently increase with very early age to destroy the vaccine’s risk benefit profile. The complication of intussusception could end up with invasive treatment and/or surgery (with compounding risks);

• Vaccine-induced intussusception is totally avoidable by not taking the vaccine.

The NHS admits that infants are bound to get Rotavirus A and if they get it as neonates or infants they are bound to be in full time care, which means no one is taking extra time off work or school to deal with it. It also admits that even if vaccinated, the child can get ill with Rotavirus A again in the future but will never be given another vaccination again because of the licensing restrictions and medical risks.

The vaccine’s efficacy isn’t fully known, only estimated at “several years”, meaning the child may become susceptible to the non-fatal virus again as young as five years of age, perhaps younger. In the face of whatever evidence exists, the NHS cannot provide semi-solid or high confidence efficacy and duration information. The NHS doesn’t bother to present parents with seroprevalence-based research and so on that might experimentally prove efficacy, even though some studies exist.

At best, an infant gets a few years of protection, but will never be able to have this vaccination again even if its vaccine-induced immunity completely diminishes. The net social effect with or without the vaccine is exactly the same: a sick child will need to naturally recover and be symptomatically treated with oral rehydration, most likely in the proximity of a carer. The same can be said of an adult, minus the need for a carer.

The vaccine doesn’t protect from Rotavirus B-E, all of which cause the same symptoms and are not fatal.

Infants and children will get diarrhoea and vomiting as a matter of course from other infectious agents, so the impact of this vaccine on those phenomena and corollary issues e.g. (un)necessary GP visits, is effectively unknowable without specific and detailed analysis, none of which the NHS presents or claims to know.

If the severity of the issues addressed and the value of the vaccine was beyond question, one’s ability to opt out would not exist, or at least be heavily questioned. There is no mandate for this vaccine, but you have to look closely to realise it is actually totally optional and highly questionable in the first place.

From 2014-2015 NHS uptake studies, it would appear that there is a defacto mandate in place because 85-90%+ of parents dosed their children despite all of the above. If the impact of the way a “recommendation” is made - despite being underpinned by all these issues - is that nearly all people follow it, the recommendation has practically the same effect as a mandate.

If an infant presents any symptoms of Rotavirus A infection as a result of vaccination, there is a whole cost benefit analysis to be done against natural infection and immunity that is simply ignored by the NHS.

Although the following is actually obvious, this is what’s going on:

• The attenuated virus vaccine forcibly, artificially, orally infects the infant with a virus that is naturally transmitted by the fecal-oral route;

• It is hoped that the neonate’s immune system deals entirely with attenuated pathogen so that the neonate is entirely symptom free but there is a risk of vaccine-induced symptomatic infection, which partially or wholly defeats the object of vaccination;

• The difference between Rotavirus A vaccination and natural infection is in no way made simple and clear by the NHS. On the one hand, the weakness of the attenuated virus vaccine may confer some years of benefit by protecting from just one single source of diarrhoea and vomiting. On the other, natural infection through the fecal-oral route is:

  • attenuated by the natural defences in the oral route, compounded by hygiene practises;

  • a fact of life;

  • entirely survivable;

  • what provides durable natural immunity that may protect from more than Rotavirus A and for possibly longer than vaccination.

The nature of the vaccine could technically infect someone else vulnerable to the infection due to a transmission risk from the vaccinated neonate’s infected excreta. In some cases, the vaccination could cause at least two cases of the thing it is trying to stop: the neonate with diarrhoea and vomiting due to the vaccine-induced viral infection; an adult (or other child) suffering the same as a result of exposure to the neonate’s vaccine-induced viral infection.

So, after all that, the question remains.

What’s the f-ing point?

Beating COVID mandates doesn’t mean what you think it does

Take all of the above. Move it to COVID.

In the UK, a COVID vaccination mandate was effectively created using the private sector to illegally force care home workers to submit to vaccination or be fired. The NHS was effectively coerced, propagandised and radicalised into submitting to vaccination and then actively misleading and coercing patients into submission and treatment with experimental gene therapies. The government used two sectors to manufacture consent and warp perception of the entire population. The care home workers were exploited, bullied and victimised precisely because they were industrially weak, poor and fractionalised in a toxic, predatory private industry. The NHS staff were culturally and institutionally co-opted and coerced useful idiots who have been exposed as functional morons who did nothing more than accept lies on faith, did no study, abused their power over others and became the equivalent of enforcers of and participants in Nazi ideology.

In practical terms, in the UK, there was a form of defacto COVID vaccine mandate that was strong enough to affect more than 60% of the population.

When it came to the crunch of the NHS mandate, which would have paved the way for a nationwide mandate, small amounts of resistance from no more than 10% of NHS staff could not be explained away or defeated by the combined weight of the government and all the private vested interests. Why? Because SARS-CoV-2 was actually a non-event and the COVID gene therapies were known by then to not work.

So, that’s a victory right? The mandate tide was pushed back by those plucky few at crunch time.

This is absolutely wrong and remains so. The defacto COVID mandate existed and damaged the whole of society, tricked people into medical treatment that wasn’t necessary, cost people their jobs (illegally) and worse. That cannot be undone and most of the effects will never be compensated for. No one stopped the defacto COVID mandate that dosed 65%+ of the UK adult population. People only notionally stopped an actual mandate, but by then it was too late.

“But we’re more aware and another COVID-type mandate is now impossible to achieve again,” some will claim.

Wrong again. What was present before COVID in the UK (and elsewhere) and still remains is a medical culture that delivers a defacto, practical mandate across the spectrum of the “recommended” NHS vaccinations. It spans all of the childhood vaccinations, the yearly adult flu vaccine and even the yellow fever vaccine. The defacto mandate is achieved by misrepresenting the case for a given vaccination to ignorant people who rely strictly on what they are told by the NHS, which might be delivered by a totally unqualified and ignorant medic or staff member. No one is openly challenging or questioning the defacto NHS mandate that culturally influences parental conformance to the NHS “recommended” childhood vaccination schedule, even after COVID and all of its lessons. It is likely that the conformance to the UK vaccination schedule ex COVID gene therapies is largely unchanged.

To assume that all doctors and nurses understand vaccination in general or specifically is to make a totally unwarranted, unjustified assumption about medics both at large and individually. Therefore, to present an ignorant parent with a complex “recommended” vaccination schedule then hide the true nature of the issues amongst multiple sources, publications and obfuscatory language is to totally warp and corrupt the parent’s or recipient’s perception, understanding, decision-making process, and ultimately informed consent. This is a complex means of manufacturing consent that delivers a defacto mandate out of “recommendations”.

This article is only a qualitative analysis of the references provided. To perform a quantitative analysis would take much longer but it is clearly not necessary based on just the referenced NHS and government sources. If any of the government sources could rely on solid, incontrovertible quantitative analysis backing the holistic risk and cost benefit of both the HBV and Rotavirus A infant vaccines, none of the information they provide would look like it does or be structured how it is. That the cases for these vaccines are written with extremely woolly, self-contradictory, vague language and arguments tells you what you need to know.

Despite being highly questionable, these two vaccines exist as part of a defacto mandatory vaccination schedule that the majority of ignorant and unquestioning parents conform to on a purely faith basis.

For the HBV and Rotavirus A vaccines, their possible net impact or benefit on both the populace and the national cost of health care is either close to zero or actually net negative. Why? Because:

• both infections are either untreatable or untreated (except in extreme, persistent HBV cases), non-fatal and they clear by action of the innate immune response;

• Rotavirus A-E is an endemic fact of life;

• HBV is almost non-existent in the UK in adults and non-existent in children and teenagers;

• the cost of treating untreatable illnesses that are non-fatal and dealt with by the human immune system can stop at the cost of accurate diagnosis. Once it is established that you are infected with HBV or Rotavirus (A-E), nothing else needs to be done other than simple self-care and some time;

• the cost benefits of these two vaccines are therefore highly questionable. In the case of HBV, it would appear one is blanket “fixing” something that almost doesn’t exist and if contracted fixes itself, in a population that is never affected (0-16 year olds) and therefore one is literally spending money for nothing, which is a net negative. In the case of Rotavirus A, at best the fix is highly specific, tightly timebound, temporary and does not comport with the known severity, duration and net outcomes of that virus.

The cost of doing nothing

In the case of HBV and Rotavirus A, what would be the cost of doing nothing i.e. not having these vaccines in the childhood schedule?

Has anyone ever said that the costs to society of HBV and Rotavirus A are quantifiably large, of consequence and more expensive than the costs of the NHS vaccination schedule for both pathogens?

HBV would remain at current prevalence levels and at a near zero treatment cost level. Remember, HBV is not treated by the NHS except in ultra-rare, extreme cases. The symptoms of HBV infection may well never cause someone to take time off work.

Rotavirus A would cause infants, kids or even adults to, at some point in life, have diarrhoea and vomiting for 1-7 days, recover, become immune and possibly never become infected again. They may take some time off school or work, and thereby put a demand on the parent to do the same, but that is a fact of family life. Wider sociopolitical and financial circumstances make both parents work and therefore make it harder to deal with a sick child at home for several days, but that is a reflection of other issues.

We’ve been through the madness of COVID, but defacto vaccine “mandates” were here all along and still are.

These circumstances and vaccine products exist despite the world having gone through COVID and supposedly more people being “aware”. Almost no one was doing anything to challenge not just the practise and policy frameworks involved in the NHS vaccine schedule but, more fundamentally, the very products themselves and the claims and “science” upon which their acceptance is based. After three years, still almost no one is doing anything to address the wider principles, specific practises and products that permeate the UK NHS vaccine schedule.

Meanwhile, the vaccine schedule is expanding and the very nature of the inbound “vaccines” have been permanently changed into gene therapies, while control, oversight, regulation and understanding of them is reducing at warp speed.

For the masses, the defeat of COVID vaccine mandates is nothing more than a pyrrhic victory unless more people do more to directly challenge everything about their nation’s “vaccine” products, schedule and mandates, be they defacto or actual.

POSTSCRIPT

For certain reasons (not including the error re HBV injection in comments below) VST continued looking at other HBV sources and data to get an idea of UK prevalence, which is data the NHS does not provide at all in its HBV vaccine guidance. Looking for this made matters worse.

First came the British Liver Trust, which didn’t provide easy-to-find quantitative prevalence /case number data but qualitatively states (excerpts):

Hepatitis B… is one of the most common viral infections and affects millions of people worldwide.

Hepatitis B is a common virus that affects millions of people around the world.

Most people with chronic hepatitis B got the virus when they were born or as a small child. There is more chance of this happening in countries with higher levels of the virus (the UK is not one of them).

Most adults fight off the virus within 6 months. This is called acute hepatitis B. Symptoms can be like a mild flu, or you may not have any symptoms.

Chronic hepatitis B is an infection that lasts longer than 6 months. It is usually lifelong.

Living with hepatitis B can lead to liver damage. This increases the chance of serious liver disease (cirrhosis) and liver cancer. Most people with hepatitis B do not get cirrhosis or liver cancer.

There is a very good vaccine against hepatitis B. All babies born in the UK after 2017 are vaccinated. People at risk can get the vaccine for free.

Hepatitis B cannot be cured. There are treatments that can help control the virus and stop or slow down any liver damage. Whether you have treatment depends on how active the virus is.

How many people who pick up hepatitis B get a chronic infection?

• Adults are much less likely than children or babies to get a chronic infection. This is because adults usually have a fully-developed immune system which is better at fighting off the virus.

• 90 out of 100 babies who pick up hepatitis B from their mother at birth get a chronic infection.

• 25 to 30 out of 100 children who pick up the infection before the age of 5 get a chronic infection.

• Less than 5 out of 100 people who pick up hepatitis B as adults get a chronic infection.

This raises some questions. First, it gives the impression that UK prevalence could be numerically “high”. If prevalence is 0.5%, that’s 335,000 cases out of 67m people. The last time VST checked, known UK HIV cases were around 30,000, so HBV would be, by these crude sums, 11x higher than HIV.

“Millions of people around the world” isn’t a useful expression or metric.

If most people get HBV when they’re born, one assumes that stems solely or largely from the infected mother. Other statements on the BLT site suggest this. However, if others catch it as a child, what can be logically inferred? How are children who did not get infected via their birth mother then catching a blood borne virus that’s transmitted sexually or via drug use or the mentioned risky behaviours? We’re right back into the abyss again, aren’t we?

Then, BLT simply jumps from saying “most people get it from birth or in childhood” to stating how adults fight it off, which ignores the obvious questions of how kids fight it off. At the end of that page it tells us that chronic sufferers either got it from their mother (90%) or got it in childhood from a third party (implying abuse). But it doesn’t tell us any case numbers.

Next, Statista shows us (with an account) that in the UK, between 2012 and 2019 there was a maximum of 9200 confirmed HBV cases (acute/chronic not distinguished).

Then, the EU HBV surveillance report 2020 tells us that, across the whole of the EU population of 447.5m, there were a reported EU-wide total of just 14,137 cases. The table contains UK data up to 2019, showing 9,200 UK cases.

On a simple level, that’s 9200/67m = 0.01% in the UK and 14137/447.5m = 0.003% in the EU. That’s not a truly fair estimate of actual prevalence because it does not attempt to quantify undetected cases.

Nonetheless, this data doesn’t comport with the HSE, NHS or the BLT’s qualitative expressions of prevalence and risk, especially in children.

The NHS and HSE claim a prevalence of 0.1 - 0.5% across the UK, putting the detected cases out 10-50x. That’s a lot.

If children are most likely to be chronic, lifelong sufferers of HBV they are most likely to be detected as cases because of the duration and nature of chronic illness ,as well as the possible circumstances of infection (mother or abuse), compared to adult contractors who may experience no symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms then completely fight it off. The fact that an adult can do this undermines total vaccination of neonates to deal with people who contract the virus in adulthood.

The simply very low numbers of detected cases, which are more likely to include chronic child cases because of persistent and more severe/numerous symptoms, and active testing of pregnant women, again serves to undermine the blanket neonatal vaccination for HBV.

VST is clearly missing something or making errors of logic. Feel free to tell us what it is. We’re happy to admit to ignorance and learn what we’re doing or thinking wrong.

Then again, the base logic of blanket neonatal HBV vaccination could be, as Jikkyleaks said, “the insidious assumption must be that the Hepatitis B vaccine needs to be given to neonates to protect [them] from paedophiles and IV drug users.”