What if the decisions we’ve been told are straightforward aren’t as simple as they seem? What if “routine” deserves a second look? This is not about telling you what to do—but about inviting you to pause, question, and decide for yourself.
This is not a rejection of medicine. It’s a result of over thirty years of reading, questioning, and observing—both professionally and personally. I am not against medical care. I consider treatments when needed. But no longer will I accept anything automatically. Every intervention—whether a vaccine, a medication, or even a routine test—is something I weigh carefully, based on my understanding of risk and benefit.
Part of this shift comes from lived experience. I have experienced a trauma response following a vaccination and a routine medical test.
Alongside that, I’ve witnessed—first and second hand—the fallout that can sometimes follow medical procedures. This has happened not just in my personal life, but within my professional work, where people bring their experiences, concerns, and unanswered questions.
I understand that individual experiences are not “controlled data”. But due to the minimal reporting in mainstream it would seem that personal experience should count for something, especially when this has been seen first hand in a client setting. Repeated exposure to patterns has changed how I tend to view risk (alongside looking at Absolute Risk Reduction compared to the oft “marketed” Relative Risk Reduction in all medications). Personal choice may be steered due to mainstream propaganda rather than actual scientific data research which can be found on a deeper dive into medical, scientific and historical data.
This isn’t just about vaccines. It has led me to question the idea of routine interventions without individualised consideration—including testing.
And more often than not, in my view, this can occur without true and proper informed consent.
This became very real for me through personal experience. In the case of my late father, carers accessed his home using a key code while I was out walking my dog and administered two vaccines. In my humble opinion, this felt entirely unnecessary and, more importantly, it was done without any meaningful process of informed consent and without my knowledge at the time - I read out the safety information after the event to him, which he had not been party to - this felt like a complete betrayal by the healthcare system. I checked the codes from the vaccine on www.howbadismybatch.com and fortunately there were little to no adverse reactions reported. The rest of my family considered that I was dramatic and crazy, and shouldn’t have even considered for a moment denying my father his routine vaccinations. Well, I was too late anyway!
Others may interpret situations like this differently, and there may have been protocols in place. To me it raised serious concerns about how consent is understood and applied, particularly for vulnerable individuals reliant on care systems.
It reinforced a broader concern: that “routine” can sometimes override reflection, and that consent risks becoming assumed rather than actively given.
That experience has contributed to my decision to take considered, individualised approach to any medical or routine intervention going forward.
One of the biggest changes in my thinking has been understanding the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.
I now ask:
What is the actual chance of benefit for me?
What is the actual chance of harm?
What are the known side effects—and what may still be unknown?
Viewed through that lens, my personal threshold for accepting vaccination has shifted.
It is widely accepted that vaccines, like all medical interventions, can have side effects. Most are mild, some are more serious, and many are described as rare. But “rare” does not mean “never,” and not all outcomes are necessarily captured or reported in ways that feel complete or transparent. Death as a “rare” side effect wouldn’t be something anyone would wish on family or friends - something that also happened to one of my friends, very pro vaccine. A rapid onset cancer that killed her in six months - attributed to vaccine damage. Yet she was still annoyed she couldn’t attend for a fifth booster.
This introduces an element of uncertainty, particularly when considering longer-term effects or outcomes that may not yet be fully understood.
Healthcare does not exist in a vacuum. There are financial incentives, policy pressures, and messaging frameworks that shape how information is presented.
Mainstream reporting plays an important role—but it is not the only lens. I believe it is equally important to explore alternative sources, question how data is framed, and remain aware of how narratives are constructed.
The existence of communities and resources such as UKCVFamily, React19, LearnTheRisk, HowBadIsMyBatch, and Just The Inserts reflects the fact that many experiences are not represented.
What I’ve also noticed is that most people only begin deeper research after something has already happened—when a reaction occurs, or when something doesn’t feel right. Like friends (clients and their relatives too) who have experienced heart issues, blood clots, rapid onset cancers - hitherto unheard of until after 2021. This implies messaging (public health) is therefore at best minimal and perhaps controversially so, only advised or “pushed” due to massive financial incentives, especially considering the messaging that the NHS is in financial crisis.
So we support them by every little bit of funding given when we subject ourselves to unnecessary medical intervention? After all, even statins carry an exceptionally bad rap to either those who’ve taken them and had serious side effects, or have researched them and found the absolute risk reduction to be negligible, also depleting cholesterol where actual scientific research illustrates it to be an essential part of our brain! What is one of the highest “causes” of death? Alzheimer’s, dementia etc…..
OK I’m not medically trained, I admit it. However I can read, have had access to medical journals and have a psychology degree; when something feels off, or without sufficient foundation, or people are steered one way or the other (and that happens to me too) it is worth taking a pause, I believe….
Before that point, many of us rely on reassurance and routine.
I now believe that informed consent should come before that moment, not after it.
This has also led me to ask wider questions about health trends. For example, we are seeing increasing diagnoses of neurodivergent conditions. These are often explained through genetics or improved recognition—and those explanations may well be valid.
But I remain open to the possibility that they may not represent the full picture. I believe it is reasonable to explore whether environmental, medical, nutrition (let’s not forget Ancel Keys controversial seven country study leading to the demonisation of fats from the 1970s onwards) or systemic factors could also play a role, even if those questions are complex or not yet fully understood.
Taking all of this together—research from multiple perspectives, lived experience, professional exposure, and a reassessment of risk—I have reached a clear conclusion:
I will no longer consent to vaccination for myself, for those I am responsible for, or for animals in my care - any exception will be taken with a rounded a picture as I can obtain with balancing absolute risk vs relative risk - a figure rarely promoted in mass media. (Although pet sitting facilities and animal travel often require proof of vaccination - in and of itself this is surely unethical but we always have to weigh up ALL the pros and cons given our situations.)
This is not about rejecting medicine. It is about applying scrutiny to every intervention, rather than treating some as beyond question.
Others may look at the same information and come to a different conclusion—and that is entirely their choice.
For me, informed consent means more than being reassured. It means having the space to question, to explore beyond a single narrative, and to make decisions that feel aligned—even if they sit outside the mainstream which is usually bound by large financial institutions and therefore biased.
My decision sits at the intersection of research scrutiny and lived experience. It is, ultimately, my personal opinion—but one that has been shaped by questioning, reading, observing, and reflecting over time.
We often talk about “informed opinion,” but it’s worth asking: what informs it? Is it belief? Is it fact? Or is it grounded in careful, independent evaluation of evidence?
For me, that question has become central. I am increasingly mindful of how information can be influenced—by funding structures, institutional priorities, and the way narratives are communicated. That means I feel a need to look more closely, to question deeply and avoid accepting any single perspective without examination.
Health decisions are personal based on the information we have at the time. I believe they should also be made with awareness of where our understanding comes from, and a willingness to explore beyond what is simply presented as given. Ask yourself - is this a belief, an opinion or a fact?
Read alternative literature, get really informed beyond mainstream and let’s (dramatic cue…) save the human race.
Office for National Statistics – UK mortality and disease statistics
World Health Organization – Historical and global vaccination data
UK Health Security Agency – UK vaccine safety and surveillance reports
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – Guidance on informed consent and medical decision-making
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – Adverse event reporting database
Yellow Card Scheme – UK adverse reaction reporting system
UKCVFamily
React19
LearnTheRisk
Just The Inserts
HowBadIsMyBatch
Dissolving Illusions – Historical analysis questioning conventional narratives around infectious disease decline
Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe
Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth
Turtles All the Way Down – Critical exploration of vaccine assumptions and policy
The Real Anthony Fauci
The Cholesterol Myths
The Big Fat Surprise
Good Calories, Bad Calories
Ancel Keys – Seven Countries Study and dietary fat hypothesis
The Plant Paradox
Research and debate surrounding cholesterol, dementia, metabolic disease, inflammation, insulin resistance, and ultra-processed foods
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
Number Needed to Treat (NNT)
Pharmacovigilance
Informed Consent
Risk–Benefit Analysis
None of the above should replace personal research, medical advice, or critical thinking. The purpose of this article is not to tell others what to think, but to encourage deeper questioning, broader reading, and truly informed decision-making.
This article was curated by me through personal research, lived experience, historical reading, medical literature, alternative sources, and mainstream reporting. It reflects my own opinions and interpretations at the time of writing.
The piece was gently edited and structured with assistance from OpenAI’s ChatGPT for readability, flow, and clarity.
Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/yi4kcpgjtu
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.