National Vaccine
Information Center

Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.
Translate this page:


Posted: 1/7/2015 4:43:23 PM | with 7 comments

by Barbara Loe Fisher
 
To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.
 

Here we are in the winter of 2015 and U.S. public health officials admit that the historically ineffective influenza vaccine is once again an epic fail.1 2
 
Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Measured from 0 to 62 Percent
 
little girls with coughIn the past three flu seasons, the CDC has claimed the flu vaccine’s overall effectiveness clocked in at between 47 and 62 percent3 while some experts have measured it at 0 to 7 percent.4 Other studies suggest that when children get a flu shot every year it can interfere with healthy immune responses and make them more likely to get influenza in certain flu seasons.5 6 Independent medical literature reviews document that flu shots don’t really prevent influenza or complications of influenza7 8 or influenza-like-illness (ILI) associated with other types of viruses that cause about 80% of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.9 10 11 12
 
A car in which seatbelts and brakes only worked at best half the time is not a car Americans would choose to buy or drive. Car manufacturers profiting from selling that kind of defective product would be sued in civil court and rightly so.
 
Americans Forced to Get Flu Shots or Suffer Sanctions
 
Woman afraid of vaccineYet, U.S. public health officials are making flu vaccine policy that gets turned into law.13 14 They are forcing Americans to buy and use a pharmaceutical product that fails to work as advertised time and again and can brain injure people, too.15 16 17 But we can’t sue drug companies for vaccine failures, brain injuries and deaths in civil court.18 Many of us are being fired from our jobs or denied an education, childcare and medical care if we refuse to salute smartly and get a flu shot every year or give it to our children.19 20 21 22
 
Dominant Influenza A Strain NOT In Current Flu Shot
 
Every spring, federal health officials select two influenza A virus strains (usually H1N1 and H3N2 subtypes)23 and one or two influenza B virus strains24 to include in flu vaccines released in the fall.  This past December, CDC officials held a press conference and informed Americans that they were unaware last spring that one of the influenza A strains selected for the 2014/2015 flu vaccine – the H3N2 subtype – was starting to “drift.” It turns out that the genetically mutated subtype is the dominant influenza A strain causing sickness this year but it is not in the flu vaccine.25 26 27 28
 
Some Experts Warn Flu Shot Does NOT Make Symptoms Less Severe
Bottom line: If you or your child got a flu shot this year, it does not protect you from the most common influenza A subtype making people sick. And now, some influenza experts are warning that flu shots do not make symptoms less severe if the vaccine fails to prevent influenza infection.29
 
2003/2004 Flu Shot Failure: Same Story
 
Is this the first time that federal health officials have been aware that the influenza A H3N2 subtype constantly mutates and is often the dominant strain of flu that circulates in the U.S.? No, it’s not.
 
Woman with fluLet’s go back and take a look at the 2003/2004 flu season’s epic influenza vaccine fail. In the spring of 2003, federal health officials did know ahead of time that the influenza A Panama strain they chose for the seasonal flu vaccine was not a match for the emerging mutated H3N2 Fujian strain making people very sick. Influenza experts told the FDA vaccine advisory committee (VRBPAC) that two genetic mutations in the H3N2 strain would likely cause the flu shot to fail if it was not included in the vaccine.[30]
 
As the consumer voting member at that March 2003 FDA committee meeting, I abstained from the influenza vaccine strain selection vote because the influenza A strain being recommended was not a match for the emerging mutated H3N2 strain and said I thought the public should be told.  31 So what was the government’s rationale for allowing drug companies to produce a flu vaccine they knew was likely a non-starter from the very beginning?
 
Well, the vaccine manufacturers said they couldn’t include the mutated H3N2 subtype in the vaccine because they would miss the fall 2003 delivery and marketing deadline! In other words, it was all about protecting a multi-billion dollar flu vaccine market and not about truth in advertising.
 
Flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2003/2004 season was described by health officials as 3% to 14%, which does qualify as an epic fail.32
 
2012/2013 Flu Shot Failure: Vaccine Manufacturing Problem
 
Now let’s look at the 2012/2013 flu season, when flu vaccine effectiveness was 50% and only 41% in preventing the H3N2 subtype that caused most of the disease that season. A little digging into the medical literature reveals that the H3N2 subtype problem was not due to a natural antigenic drift like CDC officials are claiming it is this season. No, flu vaccine failure two years ago was about mutations in the egg adapted H3N2 vaccine strain used by drug companies to produce the vaccine. 33
 
In other words, it was a vaccine manufacturing problem. Drug companies introduced H3N2 mutations through the vaccine manufacturing process, creating a mismatch between the circulating H3N2 strain and the vaccine strain.
 
Congress Funds Aggressive Influenza Vaccine Push on Americans
 
Virus PhotoHow honest is the CDC being with legislators voting to give federal health agencies and drug companies billions of dollars to produce influenza vaccines34 35 36 37 38 39 that are being aggressively pushed on all Americans, including infants, children, pregnant women and health care workers40 41 42 43 using a pathetically poor evidence base?44 45 46
 
Influenza Viruses Always Mutating, Vaccine Strain Virus Shedding
 
Influenza viruses that infect humans and animals are always mutating and evolving, recombining with each other and creating new influenza strains being shed and transmitted in body fluids and waste products of animals and humans.47 48 49 50 51 Vaccine strain influenza viruses can recombine with other viruses as well,52 particularly those shed and transmitted by children and adults given live influenza virus vaccines53 54 55 56 and by experimental live virus vectored vaccines being created in labs, with unknown effects on humans, animals and the environment.57 58 59 60
 
GMO Flu Vaccines, Risky Adjuvants: Follow the Money
 
And yet, billions of dollars are being spent by government and industry to build more flu vaccine plants to create genetically engineered flu vaccines that contain insect and animal DNA, foreign proteins61 62 63 64  65 and novel adjuvants designed to hyper-stimulate human immune responses.66 67 68 69 70 In an irrational crusade to outsmart influenza viruses, vaccine risks are increasing71  while vaccine failures continue to haunt the entire money-driven enterprise. 72 73 74
 
Repeal Flu Shot Mandates, Hold Companies Accountable
 
After decades of government propaganda trumpeting the benefits and minimizing the risks of annual flu shots, one-size-fits-all, cradle to the grave influenza vaccine recommendations should be revised. Flu shot mandates should be repealed and vaccine manufacturers held accountable for vaccine risks and failures in civil court. 
 
Click to View and Access References


read more

Posted: 1/5/2015 11:37:02 AM | with 0 comments

Theresa Wrangham, Executive Director
 
In September 2014 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials informed federal vaccine advisory committees of proposed changes to the form used by doctors and consumers to file vaccine reaction reports with the Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System (VAERS). CDC officials want all vaccine reactions, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths to be filed electronically so vaccine adverse event reporting to VAERS becomes a completely “paperless” process.1

Vaccines can cause mild to severe reactions that leaves vaccine recipients with life-long brain and immune system disorders, disabilities or result in death. The current VAERS reporting form2 allows the public to submit vaccine reaction reports by phone, fax, mail and online. In addition, federal law requires public access to vaccine provider names and requires all vaccine providers to report vaccine-related adverse events listed on the federal Vaccine Injury Table (VIT)3 to VAERS.

Most vaccine reaction reports handwritten

During the meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory, CDC officials reported that about 70 percent of VAERS reports are handwritten and submitted by mail or fax, while 30 percent are online submissions.4 The system receives about 30,0005 reports annually and it is estimated that only between one to 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are reported to VAERS.6, 7, 8

Underreporting of vaccine reactions in the U.S. is a widely acknowledged weakness of VAERS.9  It is also known that little has been done by federal health officials to increase vaccine provider reporting to VAERS since the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, which requires the reporting of vaccine adverse events.

Although the new reporting form proposed by the CDC adds new features while retaining many of current form’s data collection fields, NVIC opposes the CDC’s proposal to eliminate the option of submitting handwritten reports. The proposed shift to a completely “paperless” system is likely to result in even more underreporting of vaccine adverse events and penalize those who are not computer literate. These changes could also hinder the effective monitoring and detection of unusual vaccine adverse events occurring in the general population by health scientists.
 
Assumptions and omissions muddy data
           
CDC officials also stated that doctors viewed language in the current form relating vaccine provider identification as “threatening” and inferred liability.10 The new language created by CDC officials11 to address these concerns does more harm than good because it assumes that all Americans are being vaccinated solely by their primary health care provider rather than in pharmacies, grocery and big box stores, senior living facilities, public health clinics, the work place or in school clinics.

Also omitted from the proposed new VAERS form is information about vaccine reactions in siblings, though the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has acknowledged there are individual genetic predisposition and biological and environmental susceptibilities involved in the suffering of vaccine injuries.12 There is no legal requirement to gather sibling information, but given the significant vaccine safety research gaps highlighted by the IOM in a series of vaccine safety reports published between 1991 and 2013, this data is valuable and should be collected by VAERS.
 
Action: Submit your public comment
 
Prior to the adoption of the CDC’s proposed changes, the public has the legal right to submit public comments on these changes. Comments received from the public are supposed to be considered in the finalization of the new VAERS form. If you want to make a public comment, you must submit it before January 23, 2015.
 
NVIC co-founders were responsible for securing vaccine safety informing, recording and reporting provisions in the 1986 law and for the creation of VAERS. NVIC supports unrestricted public access to VAERS, vaccine provider accountability and identification, gathering of information on individual predispositions/susceptibilities by VAERS, and promotion of VAERS awareness by CDC to reduce underreporting. Many of the proposed changes to the VAERS intake form are not in the public’s best interest.
 
Please make your voice heard. Submit your comments on proposed changes to the VAERS reporting form by following directions outlined in the Federal Register notice.
 

References

1 Shimabukuro T. CDC Immunization Safety Office. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) form Version 2.0 (proposed). National Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting Sep. 9-10, 2014.
2 Current VAERS reporting form. Centers for Disease Control. Accessed Dec 28, 2014
3 Recording and Reporting Requirements. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 - 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-25. Accessed Dec. 28, 2015.
4 Ibid 1
5 Annual reports to VAERS. About VAERS – Centers for Disease Control. Accessed Dec. 28, 2014
7 Braun M. Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and limitations. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
8 Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The clinical impact of adverse event reporting. MedWatch. October 1996.
9 Ibid 5
10 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines transcript Sep. 5. 2014, Physician comments - vaccine provider identification, page 49 Accessed Dec. 28, 2014
11 Ibid 1
12  Evaluating Biological Mechanisms of Adverse Events. Institute of Medicine - Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012, pg 82.


read more

Posted: 12/30/2014 11:02:13 AM | with 3 comments

Just before Christmas, the powerful Pharma-Public Health-Medical Trade lobby launched an orchestrated attack in Ohio and Michigan to restrict the legal rights of parents to make voluntary choices about vaccination for their children. NVIC was able to warn parents in Ohio in time for them to take action and protect vaccine exemptions, but forced vaccination proponents in Michigan pulled a fast one and succeeded in gutting vaccine informed consent rights in that state.
 
Ohio Citizens Take Action
 
During the first week in December, NVIC issued an Action Alert via the online NVIC Advocacy Portal and NVIC Newsletter warning that the forced vaccination lobby was pressuring Ohio state legislators to create new vaccine requirements for daycare attendance and require parents to get approval from a doctor or other state designated medical worker before filing non-medical vaccine exemptions for children. Ohio residents responded to NVIC’s call to action, which was reposted on Facebook and different online forums by the Mercola Newsletter, Health Impact news, Autism Action Network and others.
 
Ohio Vaccine Exemptions Protected
 
Although Ohio legislators did pass a law (HB 394) in December that requires children attending daycare to get every CDC recommended vaccination while also giving pharmacists the green light to administer vaccines, legislators were responsive to protests from Ohio citizens defending non-medical vaccine exemptions. The new law leaves non-medical religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions intact, with one Ohio lawmaker emphasizing during floor debates the need for “flexibility and protections for people’s rights in their personal beliefs.” Another legislator stated “the same exemptions that apply today for entrance to kindergarten would still apply for those kids entering licensed child care facilities….so for those parents who have a religious or conscientious objection, they still may do that.”
 
Michigan Health Officials Abuse Rule Making Authority
 
In contrast to Ohio, where the public was allowed to participate in the lawmaking process, Michigan state health department officials abused their rule making authority so they could fly under the radar to limit citizen participation and sneak vaccine exemption filing changes through the back door. Without notifying long-recognized vaccine stakeholders, such as Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines and NVIC, and without any legislative hearings, state health officials quietly gutted the non-medical vaccine exemption filing process by burying a rule change notice in on page 166 of a 240-page document published in the Nov. 1, 2014 Michigan Register.
 
As of Jan. 1, 2015, Michigan parents filing a non-medical exemption form for their children first will be required to ask a health department official to certify that they have received one-sided state vaccine “education.” Without that health department “certification,” a non-medical vaccine exemption will not be accepted by a day care facility, school or other state-funded activity program.
 
NVIC Opposes New Michigan Rule
 
NVIC State Advocacy Director Dawn Richardson said: “In Michigan, state health officials abused their rule making privileges and failed to adequately inform the public and solicit feedback from families negatively impacted by restriction of non-medical vaccine exemptions. The Michigan legislature should make it a priority in the new session to quickly rescind the new rule, which endorses state-sanctioned discrimination against and coercion, harassment and intimidation of families making informed vaccine choices by assuming they are ignorant and in need of re-education.”
 
Stand Up in Michigan and Your State Today!
 
Learn more about what NVIC is going to do in Michigan in the New Year and what YOU can do in Michigan and other states to protect vaccine exemptions by signing up today to use the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal. As a Portal user, you willreceive email updates about vaccine legislation pending in your state and have direct electronic access to your own state legislators so you can make your voice heard. You will also have immediate access to NVIC Advocacy Portal updates as vaccine bills move through the legislative process.
 
No matter what state you live in, please understand that the forced vaccination lobby could descend on your state unannounced in the coming year. Be prepared to fight back by being among the first to get NVIC Action Alerts about proposed changes to vaccine laws in your state and learn what you can do about it.
 
Share Your Vaccine Reaction, Failure and Harassment Experiences
 
Please take a few moments to report your own vaccine reaction, failure and harassment experiences to NVIC so we can share them with legislators and post them on NVIC.org to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths and help advocate for reform of vaccine policies and laws in the U.S. It is easy to make a report to NVIC through our online reporting forums: 
Make a Year-End Tax-Deductible Gift to NVIC
 
A non-profit charity founded in 1982, NVIC works all year around to empower citizens in every state to become educated about vaccination and secure and protect the legal right to make voluntary vaccine decisions without being sanctioned for the decision made.   
 
Please make an online tax-deductible donation to NVIC here. Thank you for whatever amount you can give.
 
Happy New Year!


read more

Posted: 12/8/2014 5:20:07 PM | with 2 comments

 
by Barbara Loe Fisher
 
Act NowHere we are rushing to make last minute preparations for the holidays and what is the Pharma-led forced vaccination lobby doing in Ohio? Well, they have sweet-talked Ohio legislators into quietly ramming a new law through the legislature to add more vaccine requirements for children in daycare. Plus, the new law would force parents to get a doctor or other medical worker to approve a religious or conscientious belief vaccine exemption.
 
Act Today To Protect Religious and Conscience Exemptions
 
That’s right, if you are an Ohio resident with a child in daycare, your right to exercise your religious beliefs, your conscience and informed consent rights are about to be stripped from you unless you act TODAY.
 
Please go to NVICAdvocacy.org and sign up to be an NVIC Advocacy Portal user. It’s free and you will learn more about fast tracked Ohio Senate Bill 381 and House Bill 536. Also, you will be put in immediate electronic contact with your own state legislators on your cell phone, tablet or computer so you can tell them what you want them to do.  
 
Don’t let the Grinches in Ohio win.
 
Bad Vaccine Legislation May Come to YOUR State
 
And for those who do not live in Ohio, please understand that there is no guarantee that the forced vaccination lobby is not coming to YOUR state next year to try to fast track a bad vaccine law through YOUR state legislature. If you are signed up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal, you will be the first to know when bad vaccine legislation is moving through your state in 2015.
 
The nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center is the oldest and largest consumer-led charity working to secure flexible informed consent provisions in U.S. vaccine policies and laws. Please, help us help you protect your human and legal right to make voluntary vaccine decisions for yourself and your children.
 
Help NVIC Help You Defend Freedom
 
Donate TodayAny gift you can give to NVIC, no matter the amount, will make it possible for us to continue to defend the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking in America next year and for many years to come. It is easy to make an online tax-deductible donation at NVIC.org.
 
Thank you and we wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah or a celebration in the giving spirit of this holiday season with your family and friends according to your own personal beliefs and traditions.
 
 
 


read more

Posted: 11/3/2014 5:37:15 PM | with 8 comments



by Barbara Loe Fisher
Co-founder & President
National Vaccine Information Center
 
To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.
 
Following is a referenced excerpt from a keynote presentation given by Barbara Loe Fisher at the 2014 U.S. Health Freedom Congress in Minneapolis, Minnesota. View the video of her full 75 minute presentation here. 
 
The public conversation about whether we should have the freedom to choose how we want to maintain our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health has become one of the most important public conversations of our time. It is a conversation that challenges us to examine complex public policy, scientific, ethical, legal, philosophical, economic, political and cultural issues.
 
This may appear to be a new conversation but it has been around for centuries. 1 At the center of this new and old public conversation about health and freedom, is the topic of vaccination. 2 3
 
What unites those defending an open discussion about vaccination and health is a commitment to protecting bodily integrity 4  5and defending the inalienable right to self-determination, 6 which has been globally acknowledged as a human right. 7 8 9
 
Whether you are a health care professional practicing complementary and alternative medicine or specializing in homeopathic, naturopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, or other holistic health options, 10 or you are a consumer advocate working for the right to know and freedom to choose how you and your family will stay well, many of you have a deep concern about health and freedom.
 
Vaccination: Most Hotly Debated of All Health Freedom Issues
 
The most divisive and hotly debated of all health freedom issues is the question of whether individuals should be at liberty to dissent from established medical and government health policy and exercise freedom of thought, speech and conscience when it comes to vaccination. 11 12 13 In the health freedom movement, there are some who will defend the legal right to purchase and use nutritional supplements, drink raw milk, eat GMO free food, remove fluoride from public water systems and mercury from dental amalgams or choose non-medical model options for healing and staying well, but are reluctant to publicly support the legal right to make vaccine choices.
 
A Sacrosanct Status for Vaccination
 
Vaccination is a medical procedure that has been elevated to a sacrosanct status by those in control of the medical-model based health care system for the past two centuries.  Vaccination is now being proclaimed as the most important scientific discovery and public health intervention in the history of medicine. 14 15 16
 
Using religious symbols and crusading language, medical scientists describe vaccination as the Holy Grail. 17 18 19 20  Vaccines, they say, are going to eradicate all causes of sickness and death from the earth and anyone who doubts that is an ignorant fool. 21 22 23 24 25
 
In the 1970’s, pediatrician and health freedom pioneer Robert Mendelsohn, who described himself as a medical heretic, warned that medical science has become a religion and doctors have turned the act of vaccination into “the new sacrament.” 26
 
In the 21st century, if you refuse to believe that vaccination is a moral and civic duty and dare to question vaccine safety or advocate for the legal right to decline one or more government recommended vaccines, you are in danger of being branded an anti-science heretic, a traitor and a threat to the public health. 27  28 You are viewed as a person of interest who deserves to be humiliated, silenced and punished for your dissent. 29 30 31 32
 
Exercising Freedom of Thought, Speech and Autonomy
 
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize,” said Voltaire, 33 34 the great 18th century writer during the Age of Enlightenment, who was imprisoned several times in the Bastille for defending freedom of thought and speech before the French Revolution.
 
As contentious as the public conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy has become, we cannot be afraid to have it. There has never been a better time to challenge those ruling our health care with an iron fist. We have the power and all we need to do is exercise it.  
 
Information is Power
 
We have the tools in the 21st century to bring about a modern Age of Enlightenment 35 that will liberate the people so we can take back our freedom and our health.
 
The electronic communications revolution has provided a global platform for us to access the Library of Medicine 36 and evaluate the quality and quantity of vaccine science used to make public health policy and create vaccine laws. The World Wide Web allows us to circumvent the paid mainstream media dominated by industry and governments and publicly communicate in detail on our computers, tablets and smart phones exactly what happened to our health or our child’s health after vaccination. 37 38 39 40
 
We are connected with each other in a way that we have never been before and it is time to talk about vaccines and microbes and the true causes of poor health. It is time to face the fear that we and our children will get sick and die if we don’t believe and do what those we have allowed to rule our health care system with an iron fist tell us to believe and do.
 
Who Will Control the Multi-Trillion Dollar U.S. Health Care System?
 
What is at stake in this debate between citizens challenging the status quo and those resisting constructive change is: Who will control the multi-trillion dollar U.S. health care system? 41 If people have the right to know and freedom to choose how to heal and stay healthy, a free people may think independently and choose to spend their money on something different from what they have been carefully taught to spend their money on right now. 42
 
A free people may reject sole reliance on the expensive and, some say, ineffective pharmaceutical-based medical model that has dominated US health care for two centuries. 43 44 45
 
 A free people may refuse to buy and eat GMO foods. 46 A free people may walk away from doctors, who threaten and punish patients for refusing to obey orders to get an annual flu shot or decline to give their children every single government recommended vaccine on schedule – no exceptions and no questions asked. 47
 
The most rational and compelling arguments for defending health freedom, including vaccine freedom of choice, are grounded in ethics, law, science and economics. The human right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination is the best example of why Americans must not wait any longer to stand up and defend without compromise the inalienable right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.
 
NVIC: Defending Ethical Principle of Informed Consent
 
I and the more than 100,000 followers and supporters 48 of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center, take an informed consent position with regard to vaccination. Since our founding in 1982, we have defended the ethical principle of informed consent to vaccine risk-taking because vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury, death and failure, 49 and because informed consent to medical risk taking is the central ethical principle guiding the ethical practice of medicine. 50
 
We support the “first do no harm” precautionary approach to public policymaking, which focuses on how much harm can be prevented from a policy or law and not how much harm is acceptable. 51
 
NVIC Supports Your Health Choices & Vaccine Exemptions
 
We do not advocate for or against use of vaccines. We support your human and legal right to make informed, voluntary health care decisions for yourself and your children and choose to use every government recommended vaccine, a few vaccines or no vaccines at all. 52
 
NVIC has worked for more than 30 years to secure vaccine safety and informed consent provisions in public health policies and laws, including flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions.  
 
We are doing this in an increasingly hostile environment created by an industry-government-medical trade alliance that is lobbying for laws to compel all Americans to use every government recommended without deviation from the official schedule or face a growing number of societal sanctions. 53  Although historically, children have been the target for vaccine mandates, authoritarian implementation of federal vaccine policy is not just for children anymore, it is rapidly expanding to include all adults. 54 55
 
Californians Stood Up for Personal Belief Vaccine Exemption
 
In 2012, many California residents traveled to Sacramento to protest a law introduced by a pediatrician legislator to make it harder for parents to file a personal belief vaccine exemption for their children to attend school. They responded to Action Alerts we issued through the online NVIC Advocacy Portal and lined the halls of the state Capitol building, many with their children, and waited for hours and hours to testify at several public hearings.
 
Mother after mother and father after father, grandparents, nurses, doctors and students of chiropractic, came to the public microphone. Some talked about how vaccine reactions left their children sick and disabled but they can’t find a doctor to write a medical exemption so their children can attend school; others talked about how their babies died after vaccination; and others simply opposed restriction of the legal right for parents to make medical decisions for their minor children.
 
It was a remarkable public witnessing by articulate, courageous citizens pleading with their elected representatives to do the right thing.
 
The right thing would have been for lawmakers to vote to leave the personal belief vaccine exemption alone so parents could continue to make vaccine decisions for their minor children without being forced to beg a hostile doctor or government official for permission to do that.  
 
That didn’t happen. 56 Today, parents in California are forced to pay a pediatrician or other state-approved health worker to sign a personal belief vaccine exemption and the doctor can refuse to sign and parents are reporting many pediatricians ARE refusing to sign.
 
Californians Inspired Colorado Citizens to Stand Up in 2014
 
Yet, because in 2012 California citizens made a powerful public statement by participating in the democratic process and taking action with calls, letters, emails and personal testimony, in 2014 Colorado citizens were inspired to do the same when the personal belief vaccine exemption was attacked in that state.
 
Because in 2012 enough people in California did not sit back and assume the job of defending health freedom would get done by someone else, in 2014 enough people in Colorado did not assume it would get done by someone else.  57 And this time, we were able to hold the line and protect the personal belief vaccine exemption in that state from being eliminated or restricted. 58
 
This time, there were enough lawmakers in Colorado, who listened and carefully considered the evidence. 59  They did not cave in to pressure from drug industry, government and medical trade lobbyists 60 61 62 63 labeling a minority of citizens as “ignorant,” “selfish,” “crazy” and in need of having their parental and civil rights taken away for defending the human right to self determination and informed consent to vaccine risk-taking.
 
The Right to Make a Risk Decision Belongs to You
 
I do not tell anyone what risks to take and never will. The right and responsibility for making a risk decision belongs to the person taking the risk. When you become informed and think rationally about a risk you or your child will take - and then follow your conscience - you own that decision.
 
And when you own a decision, you can defend it. And once you can defend it, you will be ready to do whatever it takes to fight for your freedom to make it, no matter who tries to prevent you from doing that.
 
Einstein: “Never do anything against conscience”
 
Albert Einstein, who risked arrest in Germany in the 1930’s when he spoke out against censorship and persecution of minorities, said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the State demands it.” 64
 
It takes strength to act independently. When the herd is all running toward the cliff, the one running in the opposite direction seems crazy.
 
People who think rationally and act independently even when the majority does not, may be the only ones to survive!
 
Ghandi: “Speak Your Mind”
 
Ghandi was often persecuted by the ruling majority for challenging their authority and using non-violent civil disobedience to publicly dissent. He said, “Never apologize for being correct, for being ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” 65
 
Sharing what you know to be true empowers others to make conscious choices.
 
Jefferson: “The Minority Possess Their Equal Rights”
 
The authors of the U.S. Constitution made sure to include strong language securing individual liberties, including freedom of thought, speech and conscience. They did that because many of the families immigrating to America had personally faced discrimination and persecution in other countries for holding beliefs different from the ruling majority.
 
In his first Presidential inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson warned:
 
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority posses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” 66
 
Getting Vaccinated Is Not A Patriotic Act
 
There is no liberty more fundamentally a natural, inalienable right than the freedom to think independently and follow your conscience when choosing what you will risk your life or your child’s life for. And that is why voluntary, informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right.
 
Despite what you are being told by paid propaganda experts 67  68  spinning the conversation about vaccination and health in the media today, getting vaccinated is not a patriotic act 69 and declining to use a government recommended vaccine is not a criminal act. 70  It is a choice.
 
All Born Equal but Not the Same
 
And vaccination must remain a choice because, while we are all born equal, with equal rights under the law, we are not born all the same. Each one of us is born with different genes and a unique microbiome 71 influenced by epigenetics 72 that affects how we respond to the environments we live in.
 
We do not all respond the same way to infectious diseases 73 and we do not all respond the same way to pharmaceutical products like vaccines. 74 75 76 77 Public health laws that fail to respect biodiversity and force everyone to be treated the same are unethical and dangerous. 
 
My Son’s Severe DPT Vaccine Reaction
 
The first time I really understood what it means to belong to a minority was after I witnessed my son, Chris, suffer a convulsion, collapse shock and brain inflammation within hours of his fourth DPT shot when he was two and a half years old.
 
I remember that day in 1980 when I took my exceptionally bright, healthy two and a half year old son to the pediatrician with all the trust and faith of a young first time mother. Saying words at seven months, speaking in full sentences and identifying words by age two, my precocious, cheerful little boy had a friend, Timmy, who lived across the street and also got four DPT shots by age two.
 
Timmy was born to a different mother and father with a different genetic, biological and environmental history. Timmy did not have a milk allergy or a family history of autoimmunity and allergy like Chris. He had not experienced a severe local reaction after his third DPT shot like Chris had and, unlike Chris, Timmy had not just finished a course of antibiotics before he was vaccinated a fourth time.
 
Timmy did not have a reaction to his booster DPT shot.
 
Chris did.
 
Within hours of vaccination, I watched my son’s eyes roll back in his head and his head fall to his shoulder as if he had fallen asleep sitting up. It was a classic post-DPT vaccine convulsion and collapse shock reaction 78 and I didn’t know. Then, when he slept for hours without moving and I thought he was just taking a really long nap, I didn’t understand that he was unconscious 79 and could have died in his bed and I would never have known why because my pediatrician did not tell me about DPT vaccine risks or how to identify vaccine reaction symptoms. 80 81 82 83
 
Vaccine Induced Brain Inflammation and Regression
 
The immune mediated brain inflammation, also known as encephalopathy, 84 85 86  that Chris experienced after DPT vaccination was followed by progressive deterioration in physical, mental and emotional health, including chronic infections, constant diarrhea, new allergies, failure to thrive, loss of previous cognitive skills, inability to concentrate, and personality and behavior changes.
 
Chris could no longer do what he could do before his fourth DPT shot. He became a totally different child. After repeated testing, he was diagnosed with minimal brain damage, including multiple learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder and placed in a special education classroom for the learning disabled where he stayed through his public education until the end of high school.
 
Chris and I know how very fortunate he was that the severe vaccine reaction he experienced did not take his life or leave him with far more serious brain and immune dysfunction like so many of the children we have both come to know since then.
 
Today, Chris is a videographer and competitive power lifter. He has worked hard to compensate for the learning disabilities that made his childhood a frustrating, unhappy and sometimes dangerous time in his life. Recent testing has revealed that Chris has an exceptional ability to engage in abstract thinking and that, when his learning disabilities are discounted, he has a high IQ, which is one reason why he was so frustrated and lost in a special education system that does not have a place for children like him.
 
Vaccine Reaction Survivors: The Walking Wounded
 
Chris is a vaccine reaction survivor. He is among the walking wounded, who are not left with severe vaccine injuries, but whose futures are compromised in childhood when the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent.
 
How many mothers do not witness a child’s vaccine reaction and never understand why their children’s physical, mental and emotional health suddenly regressed after vaccination? How many of those children are filling the special education classrooms, doctor’s offices, mental health facilities and prisons in America?
 
The Risks of Trusting Without Verifying
 
What happened to my healthy son after vaccination in 1980 sent me on a journey to learn more and find out why doctors are not talking about vaccine risks and why a commercial product that can brain damage and kill people is being mandated. In part I was driven by disappointment in myself as a college educated woman, who had come from a family of doctors and nurses and had worked as a writer at a teaching hospital before I became a Mom.
 
Why did I irrationally assume that vaccines were 100 percent safe and effective? Why had I blindly trusted a doctor instead of examining vaccination with the same due diligence that I had researched nutrition and toxic exposures during pregnancy and had taken prepared childbirth classes to weigh the merits of an epidural versus natural childbirth and breast feeding versus bottle feeding?
 
A Journey to Find Out Why
 
Some of my questions were answered during the two years of research that medical historian Harris Coulter and I conducted, when I learned that pertussis vaccine contains lethal pertussis toxin 87 88 89 and endotoxin, 90 91 as well as aluminum and mercury, 92 93 which can make the blood brain more permeable. 94 95 96
 
That research culminated in the publishing of our 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark. 97 Harris and I were the first to report an association between vaccine induced brain inflammation and a spectrum of brain dysfunction that doctors give labels like seizures, learning disabilities, ADHD and autism. But it would take another 25 years of research and interfacing with politicians and serving on committees with doctors in industry, government and medical trade to answer the rest of my questions. 98
 
Everybody Knows Somebody
 
In 1982, when I joined with parents of DPT vaccine injured children and co-founded the non-profit charity that is known today as the National Vaccine Information Center, the number of Americans questioning the safety of vaccines was so tiny, it could not even by measured in public opinion polls.
 
Three decades later, national polls reveal that the majority of parents in America say the Number One child health concern they have is about the safety of vaccines. 99
 
That is because in the 21st century, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again.
 
Militarization of Vaccine Policy: Fear Replacing Trust
 
And people are talking about it, especially mothers taking their children to pediatricians because we are the ones who carry our babies inside us for nine months and give birth and feed and nurture them through infancy and are responsible for their health and we are the ones who usually quit work and stay home and care for them when they are never well anymore.
 
Mothers are asking their doctors logical questions about vaccination and when their doctors react to those questions with irrational rage or cold refusal to provide medical care if one or more vaccines are declined, it becomes obvious that there is something very wrong with doctors using threats to push and enforce use of a pharmaceutical product. 100 101 102 103
 
The militarization of vaccine policy in the United States is eroding the trust that used to exist between the people and their doctors and that broken trust is being replaced by fear. 104 105
 
From 23 Doses of 7 Vaccines to 69 Doses of 16 Vaccines
 
One of the reasons parents are asking more questions about vaccination is that there have been big changes in U.S. vaccine policy and law since 1982.
   
In 1982, Centers for Disease Control officials told pediatricians to give children 23 doses of seven vaccines before age six, with the first vaccinations starting at two months old. 106 Today, the CDC has upped that number to 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18, with 49 doses of 14 vaccines given between the day of birth and age six. 107
 
That is twice the number of vaccines children in the 1980’s got by age six and three times as many vaccinations as Americans used to get during their whole life!
 
But these new vaccines are not for diseases like smallpox and polio. They are for infant diarrhea and chickenpox, which are rarely fatal in this country, and hepatitis B, which requires direct exposure to infected blood and cannot be easily transmitted in public. 108
 
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts: State Police Powers Affirmed
 
Not the kind of infectious diseases the justices of the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court probably had in mind when they issued their ruling in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. 109 In that precedent setting split decision, the high court majority ruled that state legislatures could use police powers to force a minority of dissenting citizens to use smallpox vaccine for what medical doctors and government officials judge to be the greater good of the majority.
 
Those early 20th century justices based their decision in part on a false premise argued by lawyers representing public health officials, who argued that medical doctors could predict ahead of time who will be injured or die from smallpox vaccination. Doctors have never been able to predict with any certainty who will be injured and die from vaccination.    
 
In affirming the constitutional right of states to use police powers to enact public health laws, the Supreme Court was also reaffirming the roles of state government versus the federal government in public health law. Anything not defined in the US Constitution as a federal responsibility has traditionally defaulted to the states. Public health was not defined in the Constitution as a federal responsibility so public health laws have always been state laws and this is why vaccination laws vary from state to state. 110 111
 
A Utilitarian Rationale Turned Into Law
 
It is important to note that the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobsen v Massachusetts at the turn of the 20th century was clearly based on a utilitarian rationale that a minority of citizens opposing vaccination should be forced to get vaccinated in service to the majority.
 
Utilitarianism was a popular ethical theory in the late 19th and early 20th century in Britain and the U.S. and was used by government officials as a mathematical guide to making public policy that ensured “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” 112 113 Today, utilitarianism has a much more benign and lofty name attached to it: “the greater good.”
 
Minorities At Risk When State Employs Militant Utilitarianism  
 
Perhaps that is because utilitarianism went out of fashion in the mid-20th century after, beginning in 1933, the Third Reich employed the utilitarian rationale as an excuse to demonize minorities judged to be a threat to the health and well being of the State.114   Enlisting the assistance of government health officials, 115 116 117 118 the first minority to be considered expendable for the good of the State were severely handicapped children, the chronically sick and mentally ill, the “useless eaters” they were called. 119 120
 
And when the reasons for why a person was identified as a threat to the health, economic stability, or security of the State grew longer to include minorities who were too old or too Jewish or too Catholic or too opinionated or simply unwilling to believe what those in control of the State said was true….as the list of those the State branded as persons of interest to be demonized, feared, tracked, isolated and eliminated grew, so did the collective denial of those who had yet to be put on that list. 121 122
 
Jacobsen v Massachusetts Used to Embrace Eugenics in U.S.
 
Prophetically, in 1927, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes invoked the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts “greater good” utilitarian decision to justify using the heel of the boot of the State to force the sterilization of a young Virginia woman, Carrie Buck, who doctors and social workers incorrectly judged to be mentally retarded like they said her mother was. 123 In a chilling statement endorsing eugenics, 124 Holmes revealed the morally corrupt core of utilitarianism that still props up mandatory vaccination laws in the U.S.
 
Pointing to the Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts decision, Holmes declared that the state of Virginia could force Carrie Buck to be sterilized to protect society from mentally retarded people.
 
Coldly, Holmes proclaimed, “three generations of imbeciles are enough” and “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes.” 125
 
The 1905 U.S. Supreme Court majority made fundamental scientific and ethical errors in their ruling in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. It is clear that medical doctors cannot predict ahead of time who will be injured or die from vaccination and that is a scientific fact. 126 127
 
Utilitarianism Is A Discredited Pseudo-Ethic
 
Utilitarianism is a discredited pseudo-ethic that has been used to justify horrific human rights abuses not only in the Third Reich 128 129 but in human scientific experimentation  130 and the inhumane treatment of prisoners and political dissidents here and in many countries, 131 132 133 134 which is why it should never be used as a guide to public policy and law by any government.
 
Although we may disagree about the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence used by doctors and governments to declare vaccines are safe at the population level, at our peril do we fail to agree that, while the State may have the power, it does not have the moral authority to dictate that a minority of individuals born with certain genes and biological susceptibilities give up their lives without their consent for what the ruling majority has judged to be the greater good.
 
Our Lives Are Defined by the Choices We Make
 
The journey we take in this life is defined by the choices we make. And if we are not free to make those choices, the journey is not our own.
 
And the choices we make that involve risk of harm to our physical body, which houses our mind and spirit, those choices are among the most profound choices we make in this life, which is why we must be free to make them.
 
 
 
Click to View and Access References


read more




  



Copyright 1982-2014 National Vaccine Information Center. All Rights Reserved.
21525 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 100 Sterling, VA 20166