Silent
Majority Speaks
Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
We
need truth not propaganda on MMR
By
Peter Hitchens - The Mail on Sunday, January 2, 2005
Some
good news at last for those who still don't know what
to do about the MMR jab. The Legal Services Commission
has reversed its unfair refusal of legal aid to parents
who believe their children were damaged by the vaccine.
This means there is more pressure to find the truth.
Contrary
to the nasty letters (all strangely similar, most containing
lavatory wall language, almost none of them with a full
name or address) accusing me of spreading scares about
the MMR, I readily confess I don't know if it is safe
or not.
The
point is that the Government doesn't know either, as no
full-scale research has ever been made into the alleged
connections between MMR, autism and bowel disease. Responsible
parents continue to worry about this and should be given
the option of separate jabs on the NHS.
Instead
they get expensive propaganda telling them not to be silly
(from the same authorities that once advised parents to
lie babies on their fronts to avoid cot deaths).
The
man who pays for this propaganda is Gordon Brown, who
has, for 29 weeks, declined to answer my reasonable question
about whether his own son has been given the MMR. The
Prime Minister also still won't say. Why not?
|
The
MMR Bullies
Parents
win inquiry into deaths after MMR jabs
Dr
linking MMR and autism faces misconduct hearing
Another
study questions MMR vaccine
U.S.
scientists say MMR could be linked with autism
MMR
campaigners demand action as autism cases soar
Cameron:
NHS must give single jabs
We
STILL don't know if MMR is safe
MMR
safe? Baloney
|
Has the MMR link to
|
autism
been disproved? |
YES
says
Mrs. Mary Wood, Rossett, Clwyd
It's
a great shame that Melanie Phillips, in accusing the Cochrane
Library of a biased interpretation of evidence surrounding
the proposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism (MAIL),
failed to mention the most important finding on this issue
this year.
A
study carried out in Japan showed that the incidence of
autism in young children in that country continued to
rise after 1993, even though the vaccine was withdrawn
in spring 1993. After such evidence, it's very difficult
to see how the MMR can still be thought to be the cause
of autism.
We
should be extremely careful what we say on this subject.
It would be a tragedy if more parents decided not to have
their children vaccinated against dangerous childhood
diseases because of ill-considered words suggesting a
link with autism.
|
NO
says
Hugh Bostock, Maybole, Ayrshire
Melanie
Phillips's 'unanswered questions' about the MMR jab (MAIL)
exposed the latest 'official' propaganda as untruths and
innuendo. Autistic people are condemned to a life of unrelieved
yet potentially treatable illness. This is a disgrace,
for which both the Government and medical establishment
are to blame.
Refusal
to listen to parents' concerns or to investigate physiological
disorders among autistic people can be explained only
by assuming the medical establishment is frightened by
the potential findings of such investigations. The claim
that Dr Andrew Wakefield's findings have not been replicated
is a lie. Other researchers have confirmed the existence
of a new form of inflammatory bowel disease.
As
grandfather of severely autistic Hamish, aged 10, I experienced
the NHS refusal to consider physiological intervention.
I'm trying to get the Scottish Parliament and anyone in
the NHS to see the reality of the biomedical aspects of
autism.
|
Vaccination
with MMR+
Use 5-in-1
jab (let's call it MMR+) or your child could die, warns Health
Chief, Head of Immunisation Policy, Dr David Salisbury.
Read
how 'five-in-one jab' advisor has links to vaccine firm.
Melanie
Phillips (Daily Mail, August 9, 2004) asks: "After MMR, how
can we believe this new child vaccine is safe?"
Her
article ends: "The safety of MMR and
other compound vaccinations is a complex issue. The Government
has a history of ignoring concerns and then eating its words.
Unless parents are given the choice of separate vaccines, there
is every danger that more and more children will remain unvaccinated
against more and more diseases - an entirely preventable disaster,
for which the Government would be entirely responsible.
Trampling
on the public's trust - Daily Mail Comment - August 9, 2004)
When
thousands of confused and anxious parents have already been put
through the emotional wringer in the controversy over MMR, didn't
it occur to anyone in Whitehall that the whole issue of
child vaccination needed to be addressed with sensitivity and
skill?
Evidently
not. In a quite separate row over the five-in-one jab for babies,
the Government's clumsy, half-leaked, half-announced plans might
almost have been designed to provoke unease. Yes, it is welcome
that the use of mercury in vaccines is being scrapped. Concerns
that it might cause autism surfaced five years ago, and it has
been phased out in America, Japan, and much of Europe.
But
Britain has so far dragged its feet, perhaps because mercury-free
vaccines are more expensive. Even now, astonishingly, the new
jab won't be generally available for at least six weeks. So what
are parents supposed to do? Allow their babies to be injected
with the present vaccine which might - just might - carry some
risk, however remote? Or refuse until the new version is available?
That
isn't the end of it. Under the new system, five vaccines will
be administered at the same time, instead of four. But there are
already suggestions that such multiple 'cocktails' can create
problems. Most scientists, it has to be said, don't share those
doubts. They insist the new vaccine is safe. In ordinary circumstances,
such assurances would be enough. Sadly, the public is no longer
inclined to take anything on trust.
Consider
what happened over MMR. Dr Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who
raised doubts about the triple jab, was ruthlessly hounded out
of his job. Meanwhile, a bullying government flatly refuses to
allow worried parents the choice of single injections.
And
while Ministers move heaven and earth to impose MMR, the Blairs
won't say if it has been given to their son, Leo. But then, the
vaccination issue always seems to reveal this administration at
its worst. After all, didn't this Prime Minister allow Labour
donor Paul Drayson to make £20million out of a Government
contract for smallpox vaccine (while competitors hardly got a
look in) and hand him a peerage into the bargain?
Now
we are seeing the results of the years of cronyism, sleaze and
mendacious spin. This latest imbroglio isn't simply about the
ways babies are inoculated. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe
it as another symptom of the way New Labour has undermined faith
in the integrity of public life.
Dr
Peter Mansfield, who runs a GPclinic providing single vaccines
and jabs without thiomersal, said there were good reasons to be
concerned about multiple vaccinations on such young babies. He
said: " The Department of Health has missed an opportunity
here - it should be looking at what vaccines are no longer needed,
not adding things in. It used to be common not to vaccinate babies
until six months of age. I think we've over-complicated the situation
and we're trying to remedy that with a new vaccine containing
even more."
He
said parents should be given the chance to choose which components
they want to give their child - something which the multiple jab
makes impossible.
In early
May 2004, the parents of 1000 children allegedly damaged by the
MMR vaccine were sent letters by one of the drugs manufacturers,
threatening them with huge legal costs if they refused to drop their
claims for compensation.
One mother,
Carol Buxton, found the news particularly shocking. Writing in the
May 15, 2004 Daily Mail, she says that thirteen years ago, her daughter
fell ill and died following the MMR jab. But Carol, a travel consultant
who lives with her police officer husband, Tony, and three sons
in Northampton, did get her day in court.
Her evidence
was uncontested - the Government had virtually admitted liability.
Carol was awarded £20,000, the maximum allowed at the time,
followed by a further £65,000 four months later because the
original amount was deemed not to be enough.
"Does
a child have to die before it is acknowledged to have been damaged
by MMR?" she writes. "Is it not enough that so many parents
have a disabled child to look after?"
Read
"Stop trying to bully us over MMR
fears" - a letter to the Daily Mail of another mother,
Susan Tompkins of Horncastle, Leics., published on May 24, 2004.
The British
public will never forgive Tony Blair for not revealing whether his
son, Leo, had the MMR jab. His secretive approach contrasts poorly
with the open approach of the Royal Family regarding the Queen's
latest grandson. We cannot avoid drawing the conclusion that little
Leo was spared the risk of having an MMR vaccination.
Most
parents are being compelled to give their babies the MMR jab because,
by refusing, it excludes them from doctors' surgeries, school and
nursery places. Michael Howard has pledged to offer parents the
choice of MMR or alternative single vaccinations.
The candidates
could be asked if their own views and that of their Party manifesto
corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended to represent
the will of the majority of local voters. Local and National
Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and the results published
on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If
you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to
follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming
General Election."
Blair's
defiance of the will of the majority of we, the people of the UK,
over the invasion of Iraq must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this be
done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would be
to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of Commons
and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be a penalty
if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies need to
write a letter along these lines to their local Labour MPs:
Here's
one to get Tony Blair to resign:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past
year of the serious risk to our security of Saddam
Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister
Blair has admitted, that the threat was non-existent.
For that critical error of judgement and for his gross
incompetence in handling this very important issue,
I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony
Blair does the honourable thing and resign without
delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose
and help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence'
in Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority,
would leave the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you
will continue to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister.
In such circumstances I shall not vote for you in
the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of issues
could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and increasing
voters' interest and participation in politics. Download a printable
copy of the above letter here.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It is high time for
the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing themselves to
be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives in Parliament
to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in their own constituency,
even if this means going against their personal and/or their party's
policy. While they may argue their case, hoping to change the minds
of the majority in their constituency, they should ultimately be
obliged to reflect the majority view of those who elect them.
It will be argued
by politicians of all parties that most voters don't have the knowledge
necessary to express an opinion on important subjects at issue,
and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy. We should argue
that it is their duty to ensure that we voters do have ready access
to such information as is necessary to form an intelligent opinion.
That, after all, is one main purpose of Opposition Parties in our
Parliamentary Democracy.
Most important of
all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their latent interest
and obligation to cast their vote,, knowing that the candidate of
their choice would be more likely to act in accordance with their
wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be the result.
Contact your local
Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public forums in
your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant topics,
well before the next General Election expected in 2005. You should
then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of your choice,
feel fairly certain that your view on any subject being debated
in Parliament will more accurately be reflected by your representative
in that assembly.
This web site is still
under construction. If you have suggestions for additional subjects,
or material to include in the pages linked to the subjects listed,
please contact the webmaster.
|
