Hello, I'm Charles Manic 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. Oh.
Charles, thank you so much for inviting me on.
I've been a follower of the UK column News for many years
actually, so 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 sort of hand over to you.
But I will just put it out there that that you have set up and
been running the informed parent for what's really an awfully
long time now. But let's just go back to
establish the the sort of start point.
What is the informed parent and why did you set it up?
Well, it's 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 Facts. 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 a huge alarm bell went off in my body
because I started to think, hang on a minute, 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, eradicating smallpox and various
other diseases have come down much lower.
And you're brought up to believe it's a very important thing.
And it only takes a few seconds. And it's 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
1988 when she was born. So this article touched on
various things about how, you know, there was a huge decline
before disease, the diseases came before, sorry, before the
vaccines came in, and also about the ingredients it touched on.
It also touched on how it comes into your body unnaturally,
etcetera, etcetera. Then it's mentioned vaccine
damage, which I'd never really realised it existed, so there
was all sorts of things. But in those days there was no
Internet. So at the end it said send a
stamped addressed envelope 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 grown to kind of look into the
subject. And that was, you know, back in
the 1980s, there were various books coming out then 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 reads something and then just agrees with it or
whatever. So I just literally started
ploughing my way through the reading list.
And they were all books you had to buy, specialist books you had
to order, you couldn't get them in the local bookshop.
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 and it was, it just started to
snowball. And about a 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 is sort of hijacking all these
bodies to make everything very medicalised.
So, so we got together and we, I was the only one out of those
mothers who hadn't, who'd followed the vaccination
schedule. The others had, you know, 2 from
their midwives. The other one was a health
journalist and she'd studied health, which most doctors
don't, may I add. And we, 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 sort of 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, and it slowly sort of spread.
And you know, we've by the time 92 was a, a, a period of a
little bit of investigation into the MMR as well.
There was some coverage. And then 1994, so we'd been
running about two years. There was a lot of headlines
etcetera about measles and this triggered off a huge interest.
So we, you know, we suddenly grew to about 1800 subscribers
from about, you know, 50, a hundred at the beginning.
And there were so many parents desperately trying to find
information as because they'd never, they'd always thought,
you know, there's nothing to question as I did.
I didn't, I was thinking what hidden facts.
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 journals, scientific journals, sometimes
from holistic practitioners, a huge mix, sometimes from people
who've experienced vaccine damage with their children.
So a huge mix and a lot more on health really.
And then investigating the background in why we do
vaccination even, you know, because it's all 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 on earth they've continued all these years.
So, but that's, you know, it started with just me reading
something and the others being kind of advised to look into it.
And but I start I within a few years, it was such a lot of work
because we were all mothers and etcetera and trying to have
other jobs. But 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, is, is come just at this moment
was the last newsletter. I still continue with the
website and I might start writing articles individually
and make them available. So I'm, and you know, it's, I
feel sorry more for the younger parents of today because there's
huge pressure and the schedule has become enormous.
Now in the first year, the baby received so many vaccines.
When I even compare with my daughters who are in their 30s
and, and even myself, you know, there was virtually no vaccines
then. Thankfully.
I'm I'm glad I was born when I was so.
Yeah. I mean, you know, exactly as you
say the, the times have changed so much.
I mean, I think really the, the most, almost the the most
incredible thing that's dropped out of what you've just said is,
is that that start point. And here 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. I mean, it, 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? Extraordinary because actually
in those first few years, even up to the end of the 90s, there
were quite a lot of interest in programmes on BBC, believe it or
not, Radio 4, You and Yours, Women's Hour.
I was invited to a few of these breakfast TV programmes.
They were actually very pleasant to me, the presenters and there
was discussion and there was admissions about things, 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 you 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 these are the sort of things I came up against.
And and then of course when I because when you're just a, an
ordinary person thrown into ATV or radio programme, it's very
nerve wracking. And obviously I was, I gradually
got better at it and then I had less invitations because in
fact, what was it? One Department of Health,
Leicestershire, Radio Leicester 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.
You'd 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 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 but what did change and 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 that actually put in 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, I know that there was already, as I've said to many
people, it didn't just start a lot, a lot of people think, oh,
it was 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 of people that
they would call now anti vaxxers because as this smallpox vaccine
crept 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 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 it was like, so, you know,
look, cutting away and looking at what this, 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 1850, three, 21st of May when they brought the
bill in 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 and
discouraging, you'd wonder why they made it compulsory.
Yes, well, this is exactly it. And of course you know that was
set along. So I can't remember 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.
OK. 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 there were various groups in the country
and, 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, to point back to
the history and this is what I really would like to to get
into. You've mentioned germ theory and
the significance that that has in so far as the, you know,
marketability of, of vaccines is concerned in the 1st place.
Let's just go back to Jenna and, and you know, the sort of
narrative surrounding that. I mean, what?
What is your take on what he was doing and why?
Well, it's prestige, isn't it, to become a doctor.
But he he he was mostly speculating.
And when you read about how they get their medical qualifications
in, in those days, if it's almost laughable.
But 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 a
Lancet and rubbing in a product. You know, the well with Jenna,
it wasn't smallpox material that he was rubbing into the the cup.
He was, he was rubbing in cowpox.
He claimed cowpox was 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,
there's no relationship with those two presentations.
Like smallpox back in the 1600s and even back in the 9th
century, there was a Persian doctor, then Raz's.
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 Hippocrates, Thomas Sydenham.
And he said something very similar.
And he said even then, now this is smallpox in 1600s, 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 and no proper housing, people do die.
It's not easy to keep your health.
So it's it wasn't in those days those 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, diphtheria. They were all methods of the
body trying to clear the system to get better, to get returned
to homeostatis when you you're in good health as such.
And if you don't allow that process to happen, then it will
stay in the body and make you sicker.
So acute in childhood, for instance, if they're suppressed,
they become chronic and chronic leads to adulthood problems.
And then as you get older, you're starting to look at
cancers and degenerative because the body never cleared itself
out. It's you know, and when we hear
about all problems, some children, you know, die of this,
that and the other, they don't die of those conditions.
They die of their living conditions where they are war
zones, etcetera. And they also die of too much
interference like Thomas Sydenham mentioned, you know,
suppression, suppressing the fever, giving them antibiotics,
et cetera, et cetera. So there's so many aspects that
are done almost in the 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 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, of entering the
sort of medical world. And I'm sure all your, your
listeners know about all those aspects.
But so they, they wanted to medicalise every aspect if they
could. And Louis Pasteur fortunately
came along and, and again, if people take the time to read
about him, there are many books now about his fraudulent
experiments and how he he just kept tweaking everything until
he got the result he wanted. 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 and uncovering how he twisted things
or plagiarised other people and then presented various theories
that people latched onto because it suited he knew the right
people. He's 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.
And 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 100% whatever.
And you know, you, you do think, oh, you know, everything around
you might harm you, you know, so.
But it's 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 in the nature and they're stuck in
front of screens mostly, I think these days, by the looks of it.
Yes, I mean, you know, the, the correlation really is impossible
to ignore or it shouldn't, shouldn't be ignored.
And, and and I think this is, you know, so much to do with
what we're talking about correlation and and causation.
First of all, the, the book about pastor and his his own
personal diary entries. What?
What's that book called?
Do you remember? Yes, it's the private life of of
Louis Pasteur, but I, Professor Geisson GEISONI, have got a
copy. It's rather expensive.
I have to will warn you. No, I mean, I, 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 in the notes below this interview.
Yes, I mean, Professor Guison actually he studied over 10,000
pages of of the Diaries because the what happened was they
weren't the private one, wasn't meant to be public.
But I think it was a great, it was either a grandson or a great
grandson that actually donated it to the Paris Academic
Library. And so it was then available.
And that's when this professor did all his, his investigation.
But there were there the name that people don't know about is
Bechamp, 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, a, 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, is very much based
on where you live, how you live, what, 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 is 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, these kinds of sweating, 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, you know?
Yes, exactly. So.
And and you know, to your point, well, first of all, I think
Sydenham'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
Jenna, 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 all and because they the original ideas he had were a
little bit extreme because he claimed that that you you
couldn't just take the cowpox matter from the cow with it.
It was to do with horses hooves and as well.
And you're like, it's a bit sounds a bit peculiar, 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 with it's got to involve horses,
hooves and the people working with them.
And they didn't wash their hands properly.
Then they milked the cows. It, it sounds ridiculous as I'm
saying it. This is the sort of science he
did, but he did when he, when he realised they were jumping on a
bandwagon of bringing out some kind of vaccination and he was
the the chap who'd kind of 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.
Yeah. Because there were other doctors
starting to do different techniques saying, oh, you don't
need to worry about these horses, heels and the
inflammation from there or it's just the cowpox.
And he's, he did change his it to suit.
I mean, he didn't die a happy man.
You would think that being that he was the the inventor of
vaccination, he would have died in glory.
No, he was full of anguish. There was so much criticism by
then. He, he, 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, oh,
Russell, Alfred Wallace Russell. And he later in the 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 a well
respected medical person and he was asked, invited to write a
piece of vaccination in the Encyclopaedia Britannica for the
ninth volume. And so he was because he was a
thorough man. He did a proper investigation
and from starting at a point of thinking vaccines, well, 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 Cruikshank at the he was a bacterologist at the time.
He was so surprised that his his Creighton's findings.
He looked into it as well and he'd joined him in the
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 the certain
knowledge that a product will kill people.
We'll, we'll, we'll come back to that.
But let let's just just push out a bit further on the on pasta
again ego with him and just just explain the the significance of
germ theory in the modern marketing of vaccines.
It's, you know, effectively it's 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 say where's club? They say germ.
I mean germ. What does it mean anyway?
It means something, a seed that's going to germinate.
It's life actually. But they've they seem to 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 an, in someone who's sick, they
immediately blame the, that germ on that particular set of
symptoms. Whereas when you look at health
and how things occur, I mean, the germs we're, we're teeming
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, they're 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 us a favour. Viruses are hugely different
because they came onto the scene more when, well, Louis Passeur,
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, the something, well, something that's causing it.
So then 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'll find in vaccination particularly that any properly
conducted controlled science doesn't really exist.
It'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 has
hijacked medicine. It's it's not an independent,
independent thing. It's funded in every way now.
So with viruses, you could say the real, the true meaning of
virus is poison. And I would say yes, if you've
got symptoms that that something shed in say a rash, you could
say, yeah, it's a rash of delivering the poison from out
inside the body to the outside. It's it's unbelievable.
The last well, with the COVID story just before I, 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
Organisation, who or whoever will declare COVID.
It's the word, it's just a word, it's an umbrella term and they
can label anything as they did in the past with AIDS as well,
various symptoms that they could capture and, 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 or 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 world's 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, vaccine. Well, is the virus ever live?
No, it's just them got a few fragments of of DNA or whatever
it's it's broken down cellular rubbish and you just it's
captured. So I'm, I, I think with when
they talk about different strains, well, every single
person is going to have slightly different rubbish bags.
You know, it's like if we looked in our Rd we might have some
similar rubbish but other rubbish depending on what we
like to eat or whatever is 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
say in a really simplistic way actually.
Yes, well, I know. And I think you've done exactly
that. I think I think that's 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. It 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 I'll.
And given what you've just been talking about, which makes so
much sense, it's, it's interesting that that element
needed to be introduced in the 1st place because, you know,
anyone could think anecdotally at 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, they may make each other
I'll is, 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, or how, you know, how should one
look at it historically? Well, with there were like right
back in the early 1900s, for 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've, they, they came to the conclusion after all the studies
and they were really intrusive experiments, meaning they were
put in the samples of, 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 years, Daniel Reuters, ROYTAS, 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 flu through all these
different experiments. And they, they didn't work.
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, at least actually they
were more honest in those days. They would actually publish
things where they're actually saying, whoops, we 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, the, the,
the method and the results and everything.
They might even not glance at the summary.
They might just glance at the headlines 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.
A few when I was going up to the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Health 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 on 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, et cetera, 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 say 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, yeah. 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 health is the 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 realising, not exactly on mass
but certainly in numbers, that that these, these people, these
these supposed experts really were well out of their depth?
Well, yes, even before COVID, there were parents who were 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 I'm trying to, sometimes
when I've been on programmes in the past, I would be accused of,
oh, but you're not a doctor, you know, But I always quote
Professor Heidi Larsson because in 2018, or was it 9, No 19,
sorry, 2019. 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 officialdom.
And she also said that there was growing concern amongst
frontline health professionals and that, you know, they will,
they, it was sounding like, what are we going to do?
Because more and more people are questioning it, including our
own health professionals. So it's interesting that just a
few months later, suddenly we get told, oh, there's this virus
and it's, you know, we're all locking down and, and the, the
world changed overnight. And I think it they had to kick
in with something because there was a growing concern prior to
that and, and it, and they were very successful in many ways of
controlling people. And many people's lives 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 and you know, 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 and people say, Oh, I know, you know.
Yes, I think on some, yeah, you're absolutely right.
I think on some level absolutely everybody knows that there was
something wrong, no matter how fervently they they felt like
they wanted to support the governments position to
apparently keep us safe. I think with, with the time
spent in either conscious or, or subconscious reflection, I, I
would absolutely agree with you, everybody will concede that that
there was something was not quite right about that.
And, 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 2020, particularly the years 2023 to
at least 2022 was that had there been the spectre 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 now, 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 parroted 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 kind of things from
the health department. And in one particular letter
that went out to parents for measles when there was a so
called rise in 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, I wrote it into an
article for the newsletter back and forth.
And they all follow each other, you know.
So this local authority said, oh, we got it from the
government, such and such like, write to them.
They sent you all these studies. None of them showed this 15
minute transmission. And then they try to sort of
say, oh, you need to go to that person and that person and that.
You go round 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 a polling it if that's what they use.
And it didn't mention 15 minutes anyway.
So it's the same with all this. I think the the main thing, 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 and 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 wore a
mask. And 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 posts one minute because even with vaccination
originally, we're going to eradicate measles in 1980, you
know, 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're growing, you know, and in
the early years of your life and you develop mentally and
physically. And it's interesting that with
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, Harris Coulter, The Medical Vaccination, the assault
on the, I think it says American brain, but it would be anyone's
brain wherever you live. But you know, I've got lots of
reading lists and etcetera on my site website and you know.
Yeah, Yeah. Well, let's come to that in in
just a second. But I think one thing I would
just like to talk about, because as you say, the goal posts kept
changing. I mean, in that period in, 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 untrialed. 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, for the thing in the 1st place.
And this idea that that some benefit could be derived as
though, you know, you would be better off taking thing rather
than just not having anything. I mean, the the logic was quite
baffling. What I wanted to ask was, was
given the extraordinary wealth of sort of published literature
on the harms that are caused and have been caused by vaccines,
but not just vaccines, pharmaceutical products as a
whole, How 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?
Well, I mean, the vaccination is, is, is separate from like
other medicines because it, it was just pushed always this idea
of germs causing disease. So we're going, it wasn't a
medicine as such. It was like, look, you're if
you're healthy, we're going to keep you healthy by So, you
know, it's such a strong belief system, but it's hard to let go
of it. Actually, even when you start to
study it, you, you, you kind of when I first started to question
germ theory, which was in the 1990s, I was thinking no one
else is kind of, you know, I 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 all come their terminology from the germ
theory. What do you need to be immune
to? And I mean immune if if people
sell my immune system's down, well, that's your whole body.
You don't have these separate little areas.
Oh, that my immune system's great.
But my brain's 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 these so called germs or viruses if they're not the
course, which I thoroughly believe they aren't.
And and well, as I said, viruses haven't even actually been
isolated, purified, characterised and even shown to
produce disease in another and and or contagious etcetera.
So, you know, it's hard to let go of all this stuff we've been
indoctrinated with, even 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, we, they've been so much more indoctrinated with
these things and it's their life.
They might be, have been practising for so many years and
to let go of it and actually realise and, and take a
different path is so hard for them.
Well. That's a really interesting
point and 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 defence 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 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 entity and WHO, who know perfectly well
that what they're doing has a, has a, a body count attached to
it. Now, the obvious explanation for
that is, is psychopathy. Otherwise, how else would you be
able to do it? And, and given that that extends
into, you know, the, the, the sort of senior medical
fraternity, do you, do you think there is a, a sort of a point at
which that leeches over into indoctrination or rubs up
against him? And how, how do you consider the
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 the doctors generally in
my observation, although I don't see them very often myself,
Well, not at all for myself really, I should say, But other
people when I, I think there's a disconnect that 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, they have
got this disconnect. They've just heads 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 because if they had to suddenly look and
think, actually, I've just noticed so many have had this
that and the other since they had that drug or 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 Martin, Dr was saying money and prestige prevent this
to be investigated, you know, so but yeah, it does.
Certain people like you say 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 gold
standard studies for drugs. But when it comes to vaccines,
when you years back, I had to write, obviously not email write
to all these drug companies asking for all their controlled
trials where 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 differing
results in other little studies where they said we can't say if
this vaccine is 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 bad news from India.
And they said that the group that received, and it was
thousands and thousands, the group 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's 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 nought percent
effective. Yeah.
It's incredible. It's hard.
When I say these things, sometimes I think people must
say I'm just making it up. It's unbelievable, everything I
turn to, well, even now, but even my first decade of
studying, I couldn't believe what I was reading.
It does exist, this this material and it is solid
information. It's not been tampered with.
It's it's the historical background, but no one, no one
reads it in the medical world. They're just trained do this do
that. You get bonuses if you give so
many vaccines or whatever at your surgery and and it carries
on, doesn't it? Yeah, it does now.
I mean the same modus operandi across the board.
It just keeps railing, railing it, it it's completely
astonishing. I think astonishing also is the,
the body of evidence that you have sort of brought together
over the the years and this amazing thing, you know, it is
this autumn, it will be 35 years since you first sort of started
thinking about, about this, which is an incredible record.
I think my my question about the informed parent, which clearly
provides an amazing service and as you say, is not dictating.
It's, it's putting the information out in order that
people are made 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 form parent
has made over the years? Well I I've 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 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, all I was doing was
bringing, I was just doing it for them and then putting it in
a newsletter so they could, they could read it for themselves.
So I, I do feel it's, it's been part of the growing awareness
because it's just, you know, when, like you say, when you
throw a Pebble into the, the lake and it spreads and spreads,
yes. And I've met so many interesting
people over the years, learnt so much and I still keep learning.
I, 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, hang on,
how does that work? And I think thinking is is an
important subject and it should it's not taught in school
anymore. Well, schools are dangerous
place 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's you know, not, not allowed almost you
learn this parrot fashion and that's it.
And children will come home and say, but the teacher said this
and blah blah, blah. So 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, your radical parents or
your Oh dear. Some of you, unfortunately have
got radical parents and they believe and they say this and
that. And you must know that this is
they're, they're creating a, a barrier now between even the
child and the, the parent. And, and in recent years they
were paper. 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 let's move them out of the
way. Children have the right to
insist on. I want to be vaccinated, mum.
I'm only 5 but I know it's fantastic and it's going to make
me healthy. They're being indoctrinated so
young now. Yeah, I do.
I think, sorry, I'm going to say, you know, with all the
people, not just me and the informed parent, there's been
different people around, around the world doing similar things
or writing books or whatever over the last 100 years.
And they've all but, you know, all between us all.
It has kept a conversation going.
And I think now the conversation is growing as well.
Well, that's terrific. And, and, and just on that note,
I mean, first of all, I think you're absolutely right.
You know, the, the suggestion that we're all extremists and
that the answer is, is division is, is really dire and, and very
cynical. But, but with that in mind, and
given how hard the, 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 vaccination, that's saying how
wonderful it is. I, I just say, oh, I'm really
interested. What, what evidence and what
research did you do to come arrive at that?
You know, it's the same with even the COVID.
I've 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 realise 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 you, if they're open and say, well, tell me more
than yes, you can. And it's like when I ever say to
people, I say, don't actually listen to me or just read
something and believe it. Go and check it out.
You know, 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 conclusion is different to mine, that's fine.
You know, as long as I'm allowed to make my own decisions in
life. 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 a vaccination or even died.
And it's, it's heartbreaking and, and it happens a lot more
than people think. And you know, the more people
that study it, I think we, we could have a much healthier
future. It's not all doom and gloom and
nothing setting concrete as I, I try to stay optimistic about
things. There's a lot of dark forces out
there, but you know, there's a lot of light forces as well.
So who knows but. Good.
Now go. I think that's a, that's a
terrific note to 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 I 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.
OK, well it's informed parent.co.uk and you can also
contact me via that and you'll see the art is an archive.
Archive library with the newsletters.
As I said, I just finished doing the final annual subscriptions,
but who knows, you know, things might change and I'll find a
different way of getting information out.
But yeah, I'm very happy for people to contact me.
Good Magda Taylor, thank you very much indeed for joining me
on UK column. Thank you, Charles.