Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Former National Post & Toronto Star columnist, past vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Retired Doctor Explains: Why I Won’t Take a COVID Vaccine

Human rights are not negotiable.

Five days ago Andrew Neil, a prominent British journalist, declared it time to punish the unvaccinated. In his estimation, except for “a small number of people who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated,” the remaining five million unvaxxed Britons are motivated by selfishness, ignorance, irresponsibility, and ‘sheer stupidity.’

My friend, John Cunnington, spent four decades as a medical doctor, prior to his 2018 retirement. He taught medical ethics for five years. In two previous guest posts, he has explained that COVID vaccines are being administered here in Canada in violation of the definitive Supreme Court ruling on informed consent. He has further argued that while children are at negligible risk of dying from COVID, the known and unknown risks associated with COVID vaccines are real, and may be catastrophic.

Today he explains why he, personally, won’t be rolling up his sleeve.

By John Cunnington, MD

Why won’t I take a COVID-19 vaccine? First and foremost, it is my right not to do so. Security of the person is enshrined in Article 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was ratified by the Government of Canada in 1948.

click image for full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also declares that individuals have security of the person. No one can be forced, by the state, to submit to medical treatment against their will.

click image for full text of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The second point is that of informed consent. Canadian case law and Supreme Court decisions have long recognized every person’s right to be given information about material risks. A medical procedure meets the definition of ‘battery’ unless the patient has been informed of all the relevant risks and benefits, and has then provided their consent. Only the patient can decide whether or not to proceed.

The third issue is that of medical experimentation. These ‘vaccines’ are not vaccines in the traditional sense. They are experimental gene therapies that have never before been administered to millions of human beings.

The Nuremberg Code, arising out of the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals in the 1940s, established ten points that must be fulfilled before medical experimentation takes place in humans. The first states: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should…be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”. In short, no person can be forced to be involved in a medical experiment against their will.

In addition to the fundamental principles discussed above, these ‘vaccines’ don’t work. Evidence over the past year shows they don’t stop infection or transmission, and that vaccinated people are as likely to get COVID, transmit COVID, and be hospitalized and die as the unvaccinated (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) These ‘vaccines’ are a failure.

Finally, they are not safe. The US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the UK’s Yellow Card system record hundreds of thousands of serious adverse reactions and tens of thousands of post-vaccine deaths. As the injections moved to younger age groups, including children, increasing numbers of deaths and severe harms such as heart disease have become evident. These are occurring in individuals who are at no statistical risk from the virus itself.

Arguments have been made that the vaccine should be taken not for oneself, but for the public good. This is morally and ethically repugnant. It may be acceptable for police to stop cars to check for drunk drivers, but it is completely unacceptable when speaking of a medical treatment that cannot be reversed.

If people can be forced to accept a vaccine against their will for the good of society, then security of the person is no longer guaranteed. There is no fundamental difference between saying an individual must be vaccinated for other people’s benefit and saying they must be sterilized for the health of the community – or that they ought to be compelled (given perpetual shortages) to become a living organ donor. Such arguments must be rejected outright.

posted on Telegram by Mike Yeadon, 6 Dec. 2021; click to enlarge

As Dr Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer recently posted on Telegram: “Whatever crappy reason you’re given, NO ONE has primacy over your right to bodily autonomy. Our government has signed us up to various human rights conventions. They all include “bodily autonomy”. It’s THE central feature of western liberal democracy, the primacy of the individual to go about their lawful business unhindered by the state.”

In summary, vaccine mandates, denial of services to the unvaccinated, coercion through vaccine passports and segregation of society along vaccination lines completely abrogates the right of individuals to make defining decisions with regard to their own body. As if that weren’t bad enough, these ‘vaccines’ are neither safe nor effective.

For all of the above reasons, I won’t be taking them.




This blog isn’t cluttered with intrusive ads –
which means no income is earned in that manner.
If what you’ve just read is useful or helpful,
please consider making a donation

please support this blog






Print Friendly, PDF & Email


This entry was posted on December 15, 2021 by in ethical & philosophical, health and tagged , .
%d bloggers like this: