Vaccines: An Educated Decision | UK Column Interviews

Drew McIntyre here from WWE, wielding the Claymore can be a life of chaos.

When I'm not dominating in the ring, Chumba Casino is how this warrior takes a re-break.

With hundreds of online social games and new weekly releases, there's always something fresh to try.

And those daily boosts, next level, even my free time feels like foul-halling.

So when life feels like a battle, kick up your feet, have some fun, and let's Chumba.

If you want to purchase necessary, VGW Group, Void, we're prohibited by law, CTs and Cs.

21 Plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino.

Hello, I'm Charles Malak with the UK Column interview.

And today I have with me Magda Taylor, and Magda, first of all, a very warm welcome to UK Column.

Thank you for joining me.

Charles, thank you so much for inviting me.

I've been a follower of the UK Column news for many years, actually.

It's a pleasure.

Not at all.

Well, I think that's a great start for the audience.

But now to introduce you, I will hand over to you, but I will just put it out there that you have set up and been running the inform parent for what's really an awfully long time now.

But let's just go back to establish the sort of start point.

What is the inform parent?

And why did you set it up?

Well, for me, it started in September 1991.

One evening, I happened to be looking through the London evening standard journal that they published.

And there was, I opened the page to an article vaccination, the hidden fact.

And it was just at the time when my second daughter was due for her MMR.

And I read it and I've never had this experience before, but it was a huge alarm bell work off in my body because I started to see panel and it what I'm reading here.

There's so much I never thought about before because I think I'm typically most people would just grow up believing vaccines have been, you know, eradication smallpox.

And various other diseases have come down much lower.

You've brought up to believe it's a very important thing and only takes a few seconds.

And it's, you know, it's worth that little bit of pain.

And of course, when you're a new mum, you don't really know much about being a mum.

You're learning on the job, you're trying to do everything right.

And so I just followed the schedule at the time, which was back in my first daughter was late in 88 when she was born.

So this article touched on various things about how, you know, there was a huge decline before disease and the diseases came before sorry before the vaccines came in.

It's about the ingredients it touched on it also touched on how it comes into your body naturally, et cetera, et cetera, then it's mentioned vaccine damage, which I've never really realized it existed.

So there was all sorts of things, but in those days there was no internet.

At the end, it said send a stamp to dress them below to get the suggested reading list.

Well, I don't think the London even standard would send that same suggested reading list today.

In fact, I did post it in recent times because most of them were books by doctors who had run to kind of look into the subject.

And that was, you know, back in the 1980s, there were various books coming out them that questioned vaccination and what was it actually causing.

And so I just literally became absolutely determined to go through as much information as possible because I'm not the type that just read something and then just agrees with it or whatever.

So I just literally started plowing my way through the reading list and they were all books you had to buy specialist books you had a order you wouldn't get them in the local book shop.

And as I did that, you naturally start talking to people and then someone put me in touch with some health professionals who had questioned it.

Because it just started to snowball and about a few months later, some parents contacted me who hadn't had their children vaccinated.

They'd actually had information given to them by their midwives during their pregnancy independent midwives, I have to say, which I think now barely exist because of the system.

Sort of hijacking all these bodies to make everything more medical.

So we got together and we I was the only one out of those mothers who hadn't who followed the vaccination.

The others, you know, two from their midwives, the other one was a health journalist and she studied health which most doctors don't.

And we came together and the four of us decided let's set something up, the informed parent.

We're not saying what you should or shouldn't do. We're just saying, please look into it and study it widely and then make your own decision.

And that's precisely what we did. So September 1992.

We set up. It was very small scale. We were just photocopying a sort of very basic newsletter to a handful of people and it slowly sort of spread.

And, you know, by the time 92 was a period of a little bit of investigation into the MMR as well, there was some coverage.

And then 1994. So we've been running about two years. There was a lot of headlines, et cetera, about measles.

And this triggered off a huge interest. So, you know, it was suddenly grew to about 1800 subscribers from about, you know, 50 100 at the beginning.

And there were so many parents desperately trying to find information.

Because they never, they'd always thought, you know, there's nothing to question as I did. I didn't, I was thinking what did in fact.

So that's how it started. And over the years, obviously, on the internet came in.

There's a lot more access to medical literature if you want to do that. But I, what I tended to do with the newsletters is just look across the world.

What sort of articles, information, sometimes from medical journal, scientific journals, sometimes from holistic practitioners, a huge mix, sometimes from people who've experienced vaccine damage for their children.

So, a huge mix. And a lot more on health, really. And then investigating the background in why we do vaccination.

You know, because it's based on the germ theory and all these virus theories and contagion theories, which when you really start looking into them, you might wonder how less they continue doing these years.

But that's, you know, it started with just me reading something and the others being kind of advised to look into it.

But I started within a few years. It was such a lot of work, because we've all mothers and et cetera, trying to have other jobs that I decided to carry on with it. The others couldn't.

So I just carried on and here I am 33 years later. And although sadly, the last newsletter is just at this moment was the last newsletter.

I feel continue with the website and I might start writing articles individually and make them available.

So, you know, it's, I feel sorry more for the younger parents today, because there's huge pressure.

And the schedule has become enormous now. In the first year, the baby received so many vaccines.

Well, I even compare with my daughter and even myself, you know, there was virtually no vaccines, thankfully.

I'm glad I was born when I was.

Yeah, I mean, you know, exactly as you say, the times have changed so much. I mean, I think really the most, almost the most incredible thing that's dropped out of what you've just said is, is that that start point.

We are in 2026 now and given the sensitivities around vaccination and indeed the propaganda surrounding the campaigns that accompany either new or existing vaccinations.

I think the most remarkable part of your story is the fact that the evening standard would have published such a thing.

And it seems hardly possible looking back. I mean, it might be difficult to do this objectively, but, but do you now consider that that was an extraordinary thing for it to have done then or was that was that sort of to be expected.

Because actually in those first few years, even up to the end of the 90s, there was quite a lot of interesting programs on BBC believe it or not radio for you and yours.

Women's hour, I was invited to a few of these breakfast TV programs. They were actually very pleasant to me, the presenters.

There was discussion and there was admissions about them, but it got less and less so by the end of the 1990s into the 2000s, I started to notice changes.

And or if you were invited often, it would be edited out so much that you've actually said nothing or they took it out of context or if I was involved on a debate on the radio, I would be the only one who was muted.

And if there was a discussion with a few people, doctors and they only let me say something hello and who I am and bye bye, almost it was that bad and no one else was muted.

So that these are the sort of things that came up again. And then of course, when I, because when you're just an ordinary person thrown into a TV or radio program, it's very nerve-wracking.

And obviously I was, I gradually got better at it. And then I had less invitation because the fact what was it that one department of health, less this year, radio less that invited me on and they wanted me to debate with a medical doctor from their area.

This was quite a number of years ago and they refused to come on because they said that I came across too credible.

If you think they would have actually said, oh, I can't wait to speak to this woman and we've put her straight. But no, they backed out and just did a recorded message. So it's quite interesting.

Fascinating. Absolutely. It is completely astonishing, I would say.

Magda, no, given what you've just been describing, you know, you'd have to be sort of have taken leave of your senses not to realise that the situation obviously has changed enormously.

And you say that that started to happen sort of towards the end of the 90s, early 2000s. It might not be possible to ascribe it to one thing. But what did change and why do you think that did change?

I think that actually there was a growing awareness creeping in. So the only way they can deal with that is start actually putting more pressure bringing out more vaccines.

They they own the media as we know generally. And it's very easy to put out these headlines. It seemed to be like measles. It was almost every so many two or three years.

There'd be these huge headlines measles is back and your child could die and all these adverts.

And so I know that there was already, as I've said to many people, it didn't just start a lot of people think, oh, it's because of the MMR that we started questioning.

No, we questioned from back in the early 1800s.

And if anyone cares to really delve into the history, there's I've got a lot of old literature on my website.

And I couldn't believe what I was reading quite honestly. So although there wasn't a kind of movement of people that they would call now anti-vaccine.

And because as the smallpox vaccine cracked in during the early 1800s, they got to a point where they decided to make it compulsory.

So in 1853. And by that time there was a lot of growing criticism. But the mainstream people in charge or charge would always be in control of what was being said or done.

But I just wanted to read this tiny few words.

When they did bring out this compulsory vaccination act, the Lancet, which actually started, the reason it was called the Lancet was because it was supposed to be a critical analysis of medical literature and medical procedures.

So, you know, look cutting away and looking at what was, you know, whatever they're working on or some procedure or medical products.

So this is what they said in the Lancet. And this was 1853, 21st of May when they brought the billion before Parliament.

They just said it in the public mind extensively and in the profession itself, doubts are known to exist as to the efficacy and eligibility of vaccination.

This is the, this is the bit the failures of the operation have been numerous and discouraging.

So if they were numerous in discouraging, you'd wonder why they made it compulsory.

Yes. Well, this is exactly it. And of course, you know, that was set alongside a comment, but exactly the chronology, but the National Anti-vaccination League was in existence.

I think maybe not quite by 1853, but that again triggered it actually.

Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah.

Once things were compulsory, people started to pull together articles written and it was over the next few years, there were different areas that say the Midlands or the London abolition of vaccination.

And they were various groups in the country. And eventually they all came together as the National Anti-vaccination League.

And many doctors were involved, you know.

Yes. Well, I think, you know, and again, this is the thing. You're quite right to point back to the history.

And this is what I really would like to get into. You've mentioned germ theory and the significance that that has insofar as the, you know, marketability of vaccines is concerned in the first place.

Just go back to Jenna and, you know, the sort of narrative surrounding that. I mean, what is your take on what he was doing and why?

Well, it's prestige, isn't it to become a doctor?

But he was mostly speculating.

And when you read about how they get their medical qualifications in those days, it's almost laughable.

I think he would it like some of these people, they just want to be find something and discover something and become famous and he based all his ideas on on myths, local myths.

There wasn't any good science of any kind.

And he did, they, you know, there were many, many failures and also.

They didn't always do the procedure as they should in those days. I mean, it wasn't.

It wasn't like a needle. It was very crude, so they'd be making cuts with Lancet and rubbing in a product, you know, the well with Jenna.

It wasn't smallpox material that he was rubbing into the cup. He was, he was rubbing in cowpox. He claimed cowpox with similar to smallpox.

I mean, when you, you'd have to spend hours talking about it, but when you start looking into it, there's no real.

There's no relationship with those two presentations, like smallpox back in the 1600s and even back in the ninth century.

There was a Persian doctor then razes. I mean, he, he considered it that it was just the body expressing toxicity, cleansing, purging the body.

And that these rashes they had to be allowed to come out. They were cleaning up the system.

And then in 1600s, we have the English hypocrite, Thomas Sidnam.

And he said something very similar. And he said, even then, now this is smallpox in 1600.

You think everyone was dropping down dead with it the way we've been brought up.

But he, he actually, this I have to say this bit, he thought the danger of smallpox was too much interference.

And who by the medical people, he said, how it's clear to me from all observations that I can possibly make that if no mischief be done either by physician or nurse, it is the most slight and safe of all other diseases.

And this was in the 1600s and they were, they were talking about mild then.

I mean, if you're living in squalor eating very poorly and no light and no proper housing, people do die.

It's not easy to keep your health.

So it's, it wasn't in those days, even in the 1800s, there were a lot of doctors that saw all these what they called fevers.

So that would cover smallpox, typhoid, measles, dipthew.

They were all methods of the body trying to clear the system to get better, to get return to homeous status when you're in good health or such.

And if you don't allow that process to happen, then it would stay in the body and make you sicker.

So acute in childhood.

If there's a press, they become chronic.

And chronic leads to adulthood problems.

And then as you get older, you're starting to look at answers and degenerative because the body never cleared itself out.

You know, and when we hear about all problems, some children, you know, die of this, that the other, they don't die of those conditions.

They die of their living conditions, where they are, war zones, etc.

And they also die of too much interference, like Thomas Sidner mentioned, you know, suppression, suppressing the fever, given them antibiotics, etc.

So there's so many aspects that are done almost in the opposite way round to how they should be and how we've all been in modern times, led to believe that all these things are out there to get us, you know.

And I think also with the history, Jenner himself, he didn't, he wasn't into the germ theory.

He was just speculating about local myths.

It was the germ theory came later with Louis Pasteur.

And that was very much at the end of the sort of later part of the 1800s.

When you're also seeing big companies like, you know, the oil industry looking for ways of entering the sort of medical world.

And I'm sure you'll listen and know about all those aspects, but so they they wanted to medicalize every aspect that they could and Louis Pasteur fortunately came along.

And again, if people take the time to read about him, there are many books now about his fraudulent experiments and how he just kept tweaking everything until he got the result he wanted.

And he apparently, and when apparently he did, he held two different diaries, one, the public diary of his experiments and one that was a private diary.

And there is a book written about that as well.

Old covering how he twisted things or plagiarized other people and then presented various theories that people latched onto because it suited.

We knew the right people who if we can say to the world, oh, there's germs that are going to get you, but don't worry, we've got this vaccine to protect you.

Then, you know, you've got a big marketplace out there.

So we all grew up, you know, not it's worse now, but, you know, even when I was a child, all the ads saying, germs, you know, let's kill them all hundred percent, whatever.

And, you know, you do think, oh, everything around you might harm you, you know, so it's very worth it's much worse now.

Children, you know, almost a kind of wrapped in cotton wool a lot of the time, you know, they're not, they're not letting them run around playing out in the nature.

They're stuck in front of screens, mostly, I think these days, by the looks of it.

Yes, I mean, you know, the correlation really is impossible to ignore, it shouldn't, shouldn't be ignored.

And I think this is, you know, so much to do with what we're talking about correlation and causation.

First of all, the book about pasta and his, his own personal diary entries, what's that book called?

Yes, it's the private life of Louis Pasteur, but I profess a Geiss and G E I S O N.

I have got a copy is rather expensive, I have to warn you.

No, I mean, I know people will be interested in this, and particularly in sort of, you know, printed material.

So I'll put a, I'll put a note about that in the notes below this interview.

I mean, Professor Geiss and actually he studied over 10,000 pages of the diaries, because what happened was they weren't the private one wasn't meant to be public.

But I think it was a great, it's either a grandson or a great grandson that she donated it to the Paris academic library.

And so it was then available, and that's when this professor did all his investigations.

There were the name that people don't know about his passion, who was also another French scientist at the time.

But most people, the average person hasn't heard of him, but he, he did a lot more thorough investigation of why do we get sick?

And he, he, he came to the conclusion with after a lot of intensive study that it's, it's not the germ.

It's the internal soil of the body.

And that obviously your internal terrain is very much based on where you live, how you live.

And what you eat, even your emotional situation, if you're surrounded by wars and people very agitated, that's not anything that can harm or create an imbalance in your health.

It's going to lead to symptoms, so the symptoms that we produce generally, unless you've been horribly poisoned there and then.

I mean, they're the body trying to throw stuff out.

I mean, either coughing, sneezing, rashes, you can't sweat in, you know, all the things where your body is trying to throw whatever the problem is out.

You know, it's toxicity of some kind.

It's exactly so. And, you know, to your point, well, first of all, I think, Sydney's remarks about too much interference.

I mean, it's incredible. Here we are now to think of how many different things that could be applied to.

I mean, midwifery you've already mentioned, but well outside of sort of health and medicine.

I mean, too much interference is sort of the phrase of the year, really.

But thinking about not just Janet, but, but anyone who has had a part to play in getting us to where we are now.

I mean, scientific history is littered with ego being the main driver for what's subsequently referred to as discovery.

Do you get the sense that in Jenna's case, it was more than ego.

I mean, as in, did he see or was he involved in the commercial opportunity of inoculation or vaccination as a result of what he was apparently striving to prove?

Well, he did, because of his ideas initially, he did send in various ideas.

It's solved. And because they, the original ideas he had were a little bit extreme because he claimed that you, you couldn't just take the cowpox matter from the cow.

It was to do with horses, hooves and as well. And you're up. It's a bit sounds a bit cullier, which it was.

But the medical establishment at the time thought it was a bit, no, hang on, we don't want to watch this.

We've got to involve horses, hooves and the people working with them and they didn't wash their hands properly and they milk the cows.

It sounds ridiculous, as I'm saying it. This is the sort of science he did.

But he did, when he realized they were jumping on a bandwagon of ringing out some kind of vaccination and he was the chap who'd brought it up at that time.

Because they didn't like his other ideas, he started to change them just to suit because he didn't want to lose the grip of all the fame and the money.

There were other doctors starting to do different techniques and all you don't need to worry about these horses, heels and the inflammation from there.

It's just the cowpox and he did change his bit to suit. I mean, he didn't die happy man.

He would think that being that he was, that the inventor of vaccination, he would have died in glory.

No, he was full of anguish. There was so much criticism by then. He didn't know which way to turn and he was coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why vaccination failed so many times.

And not just failed, it made people sick or even killed them.

I mean, there was so much death. There was another scientist of Russell Alfred Wallace Russell.

And he later in the century and he talked about all the thousands that would have died due to this unscientific superstition.

There were quite a number. There was another professor Charles Creighton. He was, he was just the royal respected medical person.

And he was asked invited to write a piece of vaccination in the inside completely Britannica for the ninth volume.

And so he was, because he was a thorough man, he did a proper investigation and from starting a point of thinking vaccines were what the vaccination was wonderful smallpox vaccination.

He became a huge critic by the end of it.

And so he wasn't, you know, he started from a bias of think believing in it.

And another doctor, I'm trying to think, oh, Professor Crookshank.

He was a bacterologist at the time. He was so surprised that his is Creighton spined in.

He looked into it as well and he've joined him in criticism.

You know, it's unbelievable. And that's just a few I'm giving you examples.

There's loads of other really fascinating books literature from that era, doctors who originally believed in it.

They say we believed in it. They didn't say, oh, I studied it thoroughly. They just believed in it.

Yeah, well, I'd like to return to that, that, that sort of idea that, that people's state of mind can be altered by what they discover and, and to relate that to the sort of present day about effectively,

the certain knowledge that a product will kill people will come back to that.

But let's just just push out a bit further on that on pasta again, ego with him.

And just explain the significance of germ theory in the modern marketing of vaccines.

It's, you know, effectively, it's necessity to the the idea of vaccination.

Well, that's it. I mean, if we just, you know, with, or even if, well, germs, they always club, they say germ.

I mean, germ, what does it mean anyway? It means something a seed that's going to germinate its life, actually, but they've seen to him.

Turn every word inverted in a way, but germs.

They, they club them together and they, of course, they include viruses.

And as we know bacteria, yes, bacteria exist. They're living organisms.

And if they happen to find some bacteria growth in, in someone who's sick, they immediately blame that germ on that particular set of symptoms.

Whereas when you look at health and how things occur, I mean, the germs, we're teaming with life in our body and without them, we'd be dead.

They actually are clean up crew.

And they, they clean up and they scavengers. So often you might get an overgrowth of something.

And when it's cleaned everything up, it disappears again because there's no food left for it, but it's done as a favor.

Viruses are hugely different because they came on to the scene more when, well, Louis Pasteur, for instance, couldn't find a bacteria that he could blame for certain illnesses.

So he said it must be something tiny that I can't see.

And then a few decades later, when they started bringing out electron microscopy, I hate that word.

And they started to label some little tiny nano particles.

They thought, this must be the, the via something, well, something that's causing it. So they label it virus.

But some of the doctors I've come across, even way back 20 years ago, where they were looking at what is a virus.

Well, no one's actually ever actually isolated this nanoparticle and proven it to be pathogenic or contagious or anything.

So all these things have been.

It's very poor science that you're finding vaccination, particularly the any control properly conducted controlled science doesn't really exist.

There's always the science has got to show something that will benefit those who are seemingly now or absolutely controlling medicine.

You know, the industry has hijacked medicine. It's not an independent thing. It's funded in every way now.

So with viruses, you could say the real, the true meaning of viruses poison. And I would say, yes, if you've got symptoms, something shed inside a rash, you could say, yeah, it's a rash of delivering the poison from out inside the body to the outside.

It's unbelievable. The last well with the COVID story just before I kind of got the feeling something was going to kick off, but it's incredible that they've used this word COVID.

It's almost like someone, you know, the World Health Organization or whoever will declare COVID. It's a word. It's just a word. It's an umbrella time.

And they can label anything as they did in the past with AIDS as well.

There are various symptoms that they could capture and put it under the heading of COVID. And a virus in my mind now, after all the years, I've looked into it.

It's basically a little rubbish bag because when cells start breaking down, the body's intelligence doesn't want rubbish floating around.

So it captures it in little rubbish sacks. And then it expresses it. And then those little rubbish sacks, to my mind, would be what viruses are, what the medical words call in virus.

They're not things that have come from the air. They're not living even when they say live vaccine, live virus acting. Well, is the virus ever live?

No, it's just them got a few fragments of DNA or whatever. It's broken down cellular rubbish and you just it's captured.

So I think when they talk about different strains, well, every single person that's going to have slightly different rubbish bags, you know, it's like if we looked in our road, we might have some similar rubbish, but other rubbish.

It means that on what we like to eat or whatever, it's going to be different. And it's the same with your body. So when they talk about all these so called strains.

So my mind is just, it's just different people's different rub elimination processes rubbish coming from that person.

Sorry, it's a bit. I'm trying to start in a really simplistic way, actually.

Well, I know and I think you've done exactly that. I think I think that's a that's very well put and I think that what you've articulated there is that first of all, people get ill, they always have done.

They always will do your living conditions, absolutely, or your life conditions have an impact on that and on the way in which you will recover.

Or if you recover, indeed. Now, what I think you've brought out there, which I'd just like to go one step further on is this idea, you know, terminology, of course, is so divisive because you say the word virus.

And it will instantly mean one thing to one person and might mean something completely different to somebody else.

What we haven't done yet is gone that step further in suggesting that one person may make another person ill.

And given what you've just been talking about, which makes so much sense, it's interesting that that element needed to be introduced in the first place because, you know, anyone could think anecdotally of the time that they got ill but nobody else around them was.

So in a sense, the necessity to try to convince people that they may make, they may make each other ill is sort of unnecessary.

Is it or isn't it? I mean, I really, is this just a marketing ploy for an extra sort of string to the vaccine bow or how should one look at it historically?

Well, there were right back in the early 1900s instance, there were some doctors and scientists trying to investigate flu around the time of the so called Spanish flu.

And 1919 and they actually wanted to understand the transmission mode of flu.

And after many, many experiments and it's all published, people can look at it.

They, they, they came to the conclusion after all the studies and they were really intrusive experiments, meaning they were put in samples of, of mucus, et cetera, or swabs from the throat or into the nasal passages and put in that substance into healthy volunteers kind of thing.

And in all the ones they did, no one got sick.

And there was a book, well, there is a book just in recent news, Daniel Reuters, R-O-Y-T-A-S.

Can you, can you catch a cold and he went through many, many, many scientific papers where they tried to conduct, where they tried to give one person

a cold or a flu through all these different experiments and they, they didn't want.

So they said at the end of that first study, the one thing we have learnt about this is that we don't understand the mode of transmission.

I mean, actually they were more honest in those days, they would actually publish things where they're actually saying, whoops, we get actually this is strange, we don't know why this has occurred.

But slowly, slowly, it seems like the papers published these days don't really tell you anything.

They just, and most doctors don't wade through all the method and the results and everything.

They might even not glance at the summary, they might just glance at the headline and, and apart from the fact that most doctors, you know, they, they're busy and stressed and they don't spend time, I'm sure.

Relaxing in the evening, reading medical journals, if they get a chance to relax.

They're not the healthiest bunch of people either.

Few, when I was going up to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health and diseases, they were, it was right near the British Museum and I used to go there because there's no internet.

So you couldn't go online to find a study, you had to go to a medical library and they let you in at that time, they did stop lay people going in after a period, but I used to go up there.

And when I was looking at the mortality and charts, etc and all the different things that were causing death, I came to some pages where it was talking about alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide.

And it actually listed the professions who were high in that category and surprise, surprise doctors featured heavily in all three of those.

So I used to sort of stay tongue in cheek well, why would you want to go and see anyone.

In that, you know, when they've got that kind of not, you know, anyway.

No, no, exactly. Well, look, I think that that takes us on to, you know, subject area that we really can't ignore in this discussion, which is what happened in 2020 and thereafter.

And I mean, of course, one of the great surprises to anybody who stopped to give it a moment's thought was how little doctors do know about certain things.

One might argue about everything.

The health is the sort of word you've used, but actually as part of their industry, they almost universally knew absolutely nothing about vaccinations, the history, the supposed efficacy, the harms and all of that.

Did you sort of see that effect take place as in people just realizing not exactly all mass, but certainly in numbers that these, these people, these, these supposed experts really were well out of their depth.

Yes, even before COVID, there were parents who were going to discuss vaccination with their doctors and they couldn't believe how little the doctor knew and that was, you know, even in the 90s.

And into the first decade of 2000 and trying to sometimes when I've been on programs in the past, I would be accused of, oh, but you're not a doctor, you know.

I always quote, Professor Heidi Larsson, because in 2018, was it no, no, 19, so it's just a little bit before COVID kicked off.

She actually said, because she was presenting about, you know, the lack of confidence in vaccination and talking to these, the audience.

And she said that doctors are lucky if they get more than half a day study on vaccination, she said it.

So, you know, I like to quote these people, because they're from the official, and she also said that it was growing concern amongst frontline health professionals.

And, you know, they were, it was sounding like, what are we going to do? Because more and more people are questioning it, including our own health professional.

So it's interesting that just a few months later, suddenly we get told, all this is virus and it's, you know, we're all locking down and the world changed overnight.

I think it, they had to kick in with something, because there was a growing concern prior to that.

And it, and they were very successful in many ways, have controlling people and many people have changed after that. And also, sadly, a lot of people perished from over either over treatment or, you know, even emotionally isolating people.

From their loved ones, it was ghastly to watch.

But it did, it did wake a lot of people up also.

So there's more now, isn't there? I mean, I find everywhere I go, but I just, something comes up in the conversation and I know.

Yes, I think on some, you're absolutely right. I think on some level, absolutely everybody knows that there was something wrong.

No matter how fervently they felt like they wanted to support the government's position to apparently keep us safe.

I think with, with the time spent in either conscious or subconscious reflection, I would absolutely agree with you.

Everybody will concede that there was something was not quite right about that.

And, and this is what I just, just to go back to the point of, of contagion, because I think what was so very obvious about that period,

particularly the years, 2022, to at least 2022, was that had there been the specter of illness, but not one that was transmitted supposedly from person to person.

Then there would have been no premise for stopping people from congregating and, and the effects that exactly you're talking about.

Interestingly, of course, certainly in the United Kingdom, I think I'm right in saying that, that none of the supposed vaccines that were put out had claims made by the manufacturers that they would stop transmission.

It was only the government that decided that that's what they would say about it, which of course was then paraded by the media. Am I correct on that?

Well, they came out with so many things, yeah, I mean, I don't know, when they say about transmission, I'll give you an example, it's very recent, but it was on measles.

They say all kinds of things from the health department, and in one particular letter that went out to parents for measles, when there was a so-called rising cases in recent years.

They said that you could, for transmission, you only need to be near another person with measles for 15 minutes, and then you could develop it.

So I thought, oh, where did they get that from? So I started corresponding. In fact, I wrote it into an article for the news letter back and forth, and they all follow each other.

So this local authority said, oh, we've got it from the government, such and such, right to them. They sent you all these studies. None of them showed this 15 minute transmission.

And then they tried to sort of, oh, you need to go to that person and that person and then you go around in circles. And in the end, you discover there's no paper that shows that.

And the only one they kind of ended, I ended up with, wasn't even a study. It was appalling. If that's what they use, and it didn't mention 15 minutes anyway.

So it's the same.

I think the main thing that it wasn't about transmission, it was about keeping everyone separate, because if you're separate, you can't easily congregate and have a conversation.

Maybe you'll actually learn something from the other person. They wanted to just keep us all away from each other.

Psychologically, you know, I mean, I never bore a mask.

But, you know, it's, it's creepy actually walking through a town when everyone's masked up.

And, you know, it's people are kind of nervous to be anywhere near you. They created, I mean, they did a good job of terrifying a good chunk of the population.

But all these things, one says this one says that.

They change their tune the next minute, you know, they're always moving the goal post one minute, because even with vaccination originally, we're going to eradicate measles in 1980.

And then it's slowly, well, actually, we're not, we're just trying to lower the numbers and we're like this and that, I mean, measles, for instance, is a, is a childhood acute that helps the maturation process as we've grown, you know.

And in the early years of your life, and you develop mentally and physically.

And it's interesting that we're things like suppressing these kind of conditions.

What we seem to have now evolved into a population of a lot of young children who aren't developing properly, especially mentally now, it's terrifying.

And people want to read more about the effects of vaccination, even on just the brain, there's, you know, a book from the 80s, Harry's culture, the medical us.

Vaccination, the assault on the, I think this is a American brain, but it would be anyone's brain, wherever you live.

You know, I've got lots of reading lists, etc. on my side.

Yeah, well, let's come to that in just a second, but I think one thing I would just like to talk about, because as you say, the goal post kept changing, I mean, in that period in recent times, it was so very obvious that it was absolutely nothing to do with health.

And that there was a desperation to sell this drug untrial, and of course, the narrative even on that change, which is why I asked about the manufacturer's claims, because the government, of course, was then forced to back down and say that, well, you know, we never really said that it would stop transmission.

But anyway, you should still take it because it will stop you from going to hospital, you know, calling into question the entire premise for the thing in the first place.

And this idea that some benefit could be derived as though, you know, you would be better off taking this thing, rather than just not having anything on this.

The logic was quite baffling. What I wanted to ask was, was given the extraordinary wealth of sort of published literature on harms that are caused and have been caused by vaccines, but not just vaccines, pharmaceutical products as a whole.

How is it that public confidence in this very obviously ruthless profit seeking multi billion pound industry is so high? What do you put that down to?

I mean, the vaccination is separate from like other medicine because it was just pushed always this idea of germs causing disease. So we're going, it wasn't a medicine and such.

It was like, look, if you're healthy, we can keep you healthy by so, you know, it's such a strong belief system that it's hard to let go of it.

Even when you start to study it, you kind of, when I first started to question germ theory, which was in the 1990s, I'm thinking, no one else is kind of, you couldn't see any other literature about it at the time.

And, you know, it's hard to undo all the, even the terminology, for instance, you know, when I hear people saying about immune system and immunity, I mean, these words won't come.

They're terminology from the germ theory. What do you need to be immune to? And, I mean, immune, if, if you sell my immune systems down, well, that's your whole body.

You don't have these separate little areas of my immune systems great, but my brain suffering or whatever, you know, it's crazy talk.

And I always refer now, if I hear the word immune immunity, I just call it health. It's our whole body, our health system.

And we don't need to be immune to the social germs or viruses, they're not the course, which I thoroughly believe they are.

And, well, as I said, viruses haven't even actually been isolated, purified, characterized, and even shown to produce disease in another and, or contagious, et cetera.

So, you know, it's hard to let go of all this stuff. We've been indoctrinated, even when you're reading it, you have to, you get to points where you're still using some terminology or description when you're talking.

And you think, oh, hang on, no, actually, that's not even right, you know, so, and it's harder for doctors to do that than say someone like me, who's apparently a layperson.

And, you know, they've been so much more indoctrinated for these things, and it's their life.

They might be have been practicing for so many years and to let go of it and actually realizing and take a different path is so hard for them.

Yes.

Well, that's a really interesting point in indoctrination. I'm just wondering whether there's a clash or a sort of dividing line because let's say, let's take, for example, the so-called defense industry where anyone working in that industry absolutely knows that the products they're making are going to result in the deaths of other people.

And they, you know, they must have had to have squared that with themselves in order to conduct that work. Now, if you're supposedly working for the health industry in some capacity, whether it be at the pharmaceutical end of it or the sort of delivery end as a, as a medic, you are in a position where you are saying to people that you're doing something to either enhance their health or prolong their life.

When, in actual fact, there are very many people particularly at the pharmaceutical end who know perfectly well that what they're doing has a body count attached to it.

Now, the obvious explanation for that is psychopathy. Otherwise, how else would you be able to do it? And given that that extends into, you know, the sort of senior medical fraternity.

Do you, do you think there is a sort of a point at which that leaches over into indoctrination or rubs up against it? I mean, how do you consider the sort of state of mind of the people who are in that position and absolutely know about it?

Well, yes, I don't know how some of those sleep at night.

I think with doctors generally in my observation, although I don't see them very often myself, not to talk for myself really, I should say, but other people will know.

I think there's a disconnect when doctors train even because if they became too attached to every patient, they probably wouldn't survive long emotionally.

So my observation with a lot of things is that they have got this disconnect. They've just head down. We do this. This is what we give you blah, blah, blah.

And they don't, that's it. They're very close-minded. It's very unlikely that any of them, even if you question or try to discuss with doctors anything, they don't really want to disturb their lives.

So they had to suddenly look and think, actually, I've just noticed so many have had this and the other, since they had that drug.

Where does it leave them? You see, they have no job then, and unfortunately, you know, they, they, it is about money and prestige.

In fact, even back in the history of my indoctrination, money and prestige prevent this to be investigated, you know.

So, but yeah, I've done certain people, right? So when they're working with the products and know that it can cause various things, you wonder how they sleep at night.

I mean, one thing they don't do, they're always on about broad, standard studies for drugs. But when it comes to vaccines, when you, like years back, I had to write, obviously not email, write to all these drug companies asking for their controlled trials.

Because they were comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated. And of course, most of them just did, well, they either don't answer or they just say, oh, sorry, we haven't got any.

But the one famous one that they did for BCG for tuberculosis back in the 1968, in India, they did a huge field trial.

And because prior to that, there'd been so many different results in other little studies where they said, we can't say if this vaccine's effective or not, and it was causing problems even.

So they did this large field trial and the result was so shocking to them. They took 12 years to publish it and it went in the Lancet in 1980, eventually.

And they've bad news from India. And they said that the group that received, and it was thousands and thousands of groups that received the BCG vaccine had more tuberculosis in that group than the so called placebo who only got saline solution.

And what did they learn from that? They didn't say that strange. Let's do it again and see if we've made a mistake. They just ignored it and carried on promoting the BCG.

And it was less than 0% effective.

It's incredible.

When I say these things sometimes, I think people must be are just making it up. It's unbelievable.

Everything I turn to, well, even now, but even my first left hand of studying, I couldn't believe I was reading, but it does exist this type of this material and it is solid information. It's not been tampered with.

It's the historical background, but no one reads it in the medical world. They just train, do this, do that. You get bonuses if you give so many vaccines or whatever at your surgery and it carries on, doesn't it?

It does now. I mean, the same motorcycle brand I across the board, it just keeps rolling rolling. It's completely astonishing.

I think astonishing also is the body of evidence that you have sort of brought together over the years. And it's amazing to think, you know, it is this autumn, it will be 35 years since you first sort of started thinking about this, which is an incredible record.

My question about the informed parent, which clearly provides an amazing service. And as you say is not dictating, it's putting the information out in order that people are able to make an informed choice.

But I mean, you know, there's obviously a difficult question to answer, but how do you regard the impact that the informed parent has made over the years?

Well, I'm always for every person that's subscribed even, they've got families and friends. And so I know over the years, thousands and thousands have learnt or investigated. I've had lovely letters over the years.

I'm just thanking me for helping them, well, not helping them, but just giving them some information, which they might not have come across because, you know, when you're a busy mum, particularly, you can't start investigation things.

And so I was doing, I was just doing it for them and then putting it in a newsletter so they could read it for themselves. So I do feel it's been part of the growing awareness because it's just, you know, well, like you say, when you throw a pebble into the lake and it spreads and spreads, yes.

And I've met so many interested people over the years learnt so much and I still keep learning. I don't think people should ever think they know everything about, oh, I know this subject now.

There's always something that crops up and you think, how and how does that work?

I think thinking is an important subject and it should, it's not taught in school anymore. Well, schools are dangerous plays in my opinion now, especially now.

I mean, when I was at school, I think it was reasonable. I was, I just, I just missed the 60s, so born in 1959.

But we had the education service system wasn't wasn't too indoctrinated then. And nowadays, thinking, you know, not, not allowed almost.

You learn this parrot fashion and that's it and children will come and say, but the teacher said this and blah, blah, blah.

And they're even teaching them now that parents, you might have sort of what do they call them?

Oh, I can't remember the term they use now.

Your radical parents, or your, oh dear, some of you unfortunately have got radical parents and they believe that they stay this and that and you must know that this is, they're creating a barrier now.

Between even the children, the parent and in recent years, they were, I remember a paper saying something about parents are a barrier to getting all the children vaccinated.

You know what? Parents love their children. They want the best for them and they're seeing them as a nuisance now that move them out of the way.

Children have the right to insist on, I want to be vaccinated mum. I'm only five, but I know it's fantastic and it's going to make me healthy. They've been indoctrinated so young.

But I think, sorry, I'm going to say, you know, with all the people, not just me and the important parent, there's been different people around the world doing similar things.

Or writing books or whatever over the last hundred years and they've all, you know, or between us all, it has kept a conversation going and I think now the conversation is growing as well.

Well, that's terrific and just on that note, I mean, first of all, I think you're absolutely right, you know, the suggestion that we're all extremists and that the answer is division is really dire and very cynical.

But with that in mind and given how hard the this idea has been pushed that, you know, you can't talk about it.

What's your advice in how to start the conversation about this just as we round off? I mean, how, you know, it is such a sensitive topic. How does one open up that subject?

Well, I mean, I haven't had too many situations where someone's become hostile, but if anyone shows a strong opinion about facts and ocean that's saying how wonderful it is, I just say, oh, I'm really interested.

What evidence and what research did you do to come and arrive at that? You know, it's the same with even the COVID I said that a few times, why do you have such a strong opinion?

And they just look blankly and it changes everything then because they realize they haven't got any sort of background knowledge on the subject at all.

You know, and there's a silence and usually they don't change the subject, but if you, if they're open and say, well, tell me more, then yes, you can.

And it's like, when I ever say to people, if they don't actually listen to me or just read something and believe it, go and check it out.

That's, I'm only here to get, encourage you to think and read and learn and come to your own conclusion. I don't, if your conclusions different to mine, that's fine, you know, as long as I'm allowed to make my decisions in love.

And I know that's, I only, my only regret is that I didn't study it before and, you know, I know many parents whose children were severely damaged after vaccination or even died and it's heartbreaking and it happens a lot more than people think.

And, you know, the more people that study it, I think we could have a much healthier future. It's not all doom and gloom and nothing setting concrete as I try to stay optimistic about things.

And there's a lot of dark forces out there, but, you know, there's a lot of light forces as well.

Good. I think that's a terrific note to end on and indeed your philosophy about just being able to do what you want to do or to have the freedom to do that, think is absolutely right.

What I would like you to do, although I will be writing this down in the notes below the interview, but please just give the details of the informed parent website.

Okay. Well, it's informed parent.co.uk. You can also contact me via that and you'll see there's an archive archive library with the newsletters.

As I said, I've just finished doing the final and your subscriptions, but who knows, you know, things might change and I'll find a different way of getting information out.

So, yeah, I'm very happy to be particularly happy.

Good. Magda Taylor, thank you very much indeed for joining me on UK column.

Thank you, Charles.

Hello.

Taylor, I'd like to hear from 2311 Racing. Game Night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot.

Chalk, breathe, re-chalk, still aiming.

While they figure it out, I fire up Champa Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime, and there's always a new social casino game every week.

The spins happen way faster than that shot.

Play now at Champa Casino.com

Let's Champa, sponsored by Champa Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Board will be prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Spins happen way faster than that shot.

Play now at champa Casino.com. Let's Champa. Sponsored by Champa Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group Board will be prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.