The government may be aware that if they were to legislate for compulsory mass vaccination, or were to introduce sanctions for those who refuse to have a COVID vaccination, they’ll likely have to deal with the nearest thing we’ve had to a civil war in this country since Thatcher’s 1990s poll-tax riots.

In the government’s vaccination consultation that’s still running as I write, they’re asking for people’s views on whether legislative changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMRs) can fast-track mass vaccination using unregistered vaccines, as well as permitting advertising by commercially interested parties and the administration of vaccination by non-health care professionals. The shape of things to come?

But perhaps the government has already decided. They’ve recently replied officially to a petition on this issue (“Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination”) that has attracted over 125,000 signatories and which may therefore be debated in Parliament. In their statement, we see the following weasel words: “...There are currently no plans to introduce a Covid-19 vaccine in a way that penalises those who do not take up the vaccine” (omitting to say “but we may have tomorrow”, of course). But the thinly veiled threat of the mailed fist soon follows: “…However, the Government will carefully consider all options to improve vaccination rates, should that be necessary.” (my italics)

More widely still, the research process that claims to be determining whether a vaccination is safe is fundamentally flawed. This is because those who choose to co-operate in any vaccination trial will necessarily be people who are relaxed about having foreign substances injected into their bloodstream; and concomitantly, no doubt the research sample will include few if any people who have grave concerns about vaccination.

In this crucial sense, the research process is majorly biased and thus fundamentally flawed, as it will yield results which paint the vaccine in a far more favourable light than if a representative sample of the population had been sampled. Materialist mainstream medicine of course ignores the psychosomatic and psychodynamic impact of medical treatments such as these – yet these impacts play a vital role in whether a medical treatment is appropriate, or “iatrogenic” (meaning a treatment that is itself harmful) for at least some people.

I urge the government to respect citizens’ human right to decline to have foreign substances injected into their bodies by the State. And if they don’t, the consequences for civil disobedience and the future of democracy in this country really don’t bear thinking about.


Dr Richard House