Home / Vaccines: An Attorney’s Viewpoint-James Robert Deal
“54 Quadrillion Atoms of Mercury in a Thimerosal Flu Shot”
Original ⇒ VACCINES: AN ATTORNEY’S VIEWPOINT
We keep our own copy, just in case
the original is lost! Thank you James.
OVERVIEW
The production and administration of vaccines is being conducted in a way any court would find to be reckless. Double blind testing is generally not being done. The producers are completely immune from liability and therefore have little incentive to make safer vaccines. The CDC approved vaccines contain a host of toxic preservatives, antibiotics, and other additives. The CDC covered up and destroyed evidence that proved that one vaccine does cause autism. The CDC is promoting the vaccination of pregnant women, which can harm the fetus.
There are safe and effective vaccines, but not a one is on the CDC list of approved vaccines. There is a big money vaccine war going on. On one side are those who say all vaccines on the CDC list are safe and effective and that we should vaccinate and have no need for more testing for safety. On the other side are those who say vaccinate less – or not at all – and test vaccines for safety.
SAFETY
There are unsafe vaccines. Big Pharma knows this and continues to push unsafe vaccines. The flu vaccines which contain mercury Thimerosal are the most conspicuous example of unsafe vaccines. Vaccines containing Thimerosal get a grade worse than “F”. Thimerosal proponents should be expelled from school for their malicious incompetence. Any vaccine containing mercury is downright dangerous and should be banned.
Even worse than putting mercury in vaccines in vaccines is the absurd practice of vaccinating pregnant mothers with mercury flu vaccines, given that the mercury passes through to the fetus.
*
Effectiveness: The CDC admits that some commonly administered vaccines are mostly ineffective. The smallpox vaccine, the first vaccine, was generally ineffective. The Pertussis vaccine is mostly ineffective. *
Not leaky: A leaky vaccine is one which suppresses most symptoms but allows the person who has been vaccinated to spread the disease to others.
One who is vaccinated contracts a vaccine version of the virus and sheds viruses. So those recently vaccinated can transmit the disease, just as a person infected with a wild case of measles or pertussis or any other viral disease. Leaky vaccines promote the growth of more vigorous diseases by killing off all but the most vigorous strains of the disease. The flu vaccine is leaky and spreads flu to others, which turns the herd immunity theory on its head.
(Read more about LEAKY VACCINES below.)
Safe but not effective: What if a vaccine is safe but not effective? There is no point in taking a vaccines which is safe but not effective. This is because no vaccines is absolutely safe. All vaccines and all drugs in general involve some risk, so one should not take a vaccine unless there is a good reason to do so.
Effective but not safe: In theory a vaccine might be effective but unsafe.
If can be unsafe to the person vaccinated, causing adverse reactions, or it can be unsafe to others, for example, if it is leaky and spreads the disease it is designed to prevent.
Necessary: What if a vaccine is safe and effective but not necessary. Cholera is a good example. We have clean drinking water and good sewers, and so we do not have cholera in the developed world. If there were a safe and effective cholera vaccine, it should not be used in the West because it is unnecessary. And in the developing world, testing and good sanitation is to be preferred over vaccination. There is a cholera vaccine, but the Fact Sheet says: “Cholera vaccines are an additional way to control cholera, but should not replace conventional control measures.”
The same could be said for the hepatitis B vaccine when administered to infants. Few infants are intravenous drug users or sexually promiscuous. If there is concern that the mother might pass the disease to the child, test the mother. (I do not know how and when hepatitis B would pass from an infected mother to her infant, whether it would before, during, or after the birth process. And whether vaccination at birth would be too late to do any good. And the other question is whether the hepatitis B vaccine is [safe and effective. ] Feedback on these point would be welcome.)
Likewise, the rabies vaccine, perfected by Louis Pasteur in the 1880s, appears to be effective, but it is by no means necessary on a regular basis. The effectiveness wears off. Rabies in humans can be fatal. In Washington only bats carry rabies. Bat bites are rare. One can be treated for rabies after being bitten, with a vaccine and globulin combo that is effective and does not have serious side effects. There are reports of adverse reactions. And there are reports that intravenous vitamin C does a good job of helping the body defeat the virus.
Well known physicians regard many or most vaccines as unnecessary.
Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. asserts that the polio vaccines was not necessary and should never have been developed. Dr. Richard Moscowitz, M.D., opposes vaccination in general, in part because he regards them as unnecessary.
Finally, consider the vaccine which fails all five tests, including the test of legality, the mercury flu vaccine.
The most common flu vaccine contains mercury Thimerosal.
It is downright dangerous and should be banned. The flu vaccine is mostly ineffective because flu is constantly evolving. A moving target is hard to hit.
The flu vaccine causes many adverse reactions and is unsafe to those taking the vaccine. The flu vaccine is leaky and spreads flu to others, which turns the herd immunity theory on its head.
Finally, the flu vaccine is illegal. It is illegal because required development procedures required for all other vaccines are waived for the flu vaccine. A new flu vaccine must be prepared each year because the virus is constantly evolving. But the law requires tests which take a number of years. In the case of the flu vaccine, lengthy testing is waived. The law does not allow for any wavers.
Phase 1 involves a preliminary study on around 20 to 80 volunteers.
Phase 2 is a controlled study on up to several hundred volunteers.
Ideally such studies are double-blind placebo-controlled investigations in which patients are randomly assigned to a drug treatment group or a placebo group and neither the patient nor the investigator knows, until the end of the trial, which option the patient received.
The little know truth is that placebo studies are not done with vaccines.
A placebo study would compare the vaccine against a placebo containing saline solution or some other completely neutral injection.
Instead the full vaccine containing the viral agent and adjuvants is compared with the same vaccine containing adjuvants but none of the viral agent against the target virus. Or the comparison might be the same vaccine administered before and after a certain age.
Regarding Phase 3 studies:
Phase III drug trials are reserved for experimental drugs which have shown at least some evidence of effectiveness in previous trials. They involve large numbers of patients (several hundred to several thousand) and are designed to gather enough information on safety and effectiveness to allow an adequate assessment of a risk/benefit ratio for the study drug as well as for the preparation of material for physician’s labeling. They also use a broader patient population and can be designed to gather longer term safety and effectiveness data as well as data to establish optimum drug dosing. Phase III trials also typically have a data monitoring committee overseeing the collection of data during the trials.
Phase 4 studies are long term evaluations. In the case of the flu vaccine, it is impossible to go through Phase 4 because the flu strain is constantly evolving and so the vaccine must be redesigned yearly. There is not enough time for four phase testing. The law does not say that all four phases of testing will take place when feasible. It says the tests will be done. Flu vaccines are thus illegal.
They are also mostly ineffective, unsafe, leaky, and unnecessary.
However, the flu vaccine is profitable. Around 300,000 doses are administered yearly as against only 20,000 of all other vaccines. [U.S.]
It has been made popular through false propaganda.
ALL CDC APPROVED VACCINES FAIL TESTS
All the vaccines on the CDC list fail some or all of the tests identified.
True placebo comparisons are not done. The only vaccines which pass all four tests are the homeopathic vaccines. They have been proven safe and effective through double blind testing. They contain no harmful ingredients. They are not leaky and do not spread disease. See the sections towards the end of this paper entitled
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE VACCINES
There are vaccines which are safe, effective, necessary, not leaky, and legal, but none of them are on the CDC list of recommended vaccines. I am referring to the homeopathic vaccines. The process is referred to as homeoprophylaxis. The homeopathic vaccines really do work. They contain no toxic ingredients and are perfectly safe. They do not spread the disease they protecting against. They have been proven by the Cubans and others to be very helpful in dealing with such diseases as dengue, chikungunya, cholera, and diphtheria. This is the type of vaccines which the CDC should be studying and encouraging with research funding.
Homeoprophylaxis was developed by homeopathic physicians.
We do not hear much about homeopathy because the orthodox medical profession has for the most part regarded it as quackery. Medical doctors to not understand how homeopathy might work and therefore close their mind to the very possibility that it might work.
However, attitudes are beginning to change. Orthodox medicine has accepted massage therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic. It may accept Chinese and Ayurveda medicine and someday homeopathy. Each has something to offer.
Conventional medicine excels at dealing with injuries, organ replacement, and surgeries, for example. Homeopathy excels at strengthening the body’s defenses and thus to the prevention of disease and the reduction of the adverse effects of the disease. It is good at teaching the body how to respond to disease. The proof is in the double-blind studies. Homeoprophylaxis has been proven effective.
At the same time homeoprophylaxis is safe and causes no adverse reactions.
I am not sure that anyone knows how homeopathy works. But that should not lead to the presumption that it cannot work.
Vaccine research should continue but in the new directions mapped out by alternative medicine.
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Originally vaccination targeted the most lethal, fast-acting virus of all, smallpox, beginning in the late 1700s and early 1800s. In Great Britain and the United States many attempts were made to require smallpox vaccination. Various smallpox vaccines actually spread smallpox, as discussed in detail by Dr. Mercola. It is said that the smallpox vaccine cannot have been responsible for the eradication of smallpox because only 10 percent of the population was ever vaccinated at any one time. The city of Leicester rebelled against smallpox vaccination and had fewer cases of smallpox that did nearby vaccinated communities. Smallpox was spread through coughing. An effective way to prevent the spread of smallpox was to isolate those infected. Opponents claimed that smallpox vaccine caused more smallpox than it prevented.
The accusation is that the early smallpox vaccines spread smallpox.
Smallpox lives in no other species, and so it is gone for good.
Mandatory smallpox vaccination laws were passed in various areas of the United States, and some refused to be vaccinated. In Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court in 1905 upheld a Massachusetts law which required vaccination or payment of a $5 penalty. The Court ruled that state and local governments could pass such mandatory smallpox vaccination laws and that those who refused could be fined. (It did not say that children could be excluded from school if not vaccinated, for example.) The reasoning of the Supreme Court was that the Constitution leaves police powers over such matters as health and public safety with the states. Ours is a federal system. Therefore, if there is any rational basis for a police action such as requiring vaccination, then the benefit of the doubt is in favour of the states.
The Supreme Court presumed that smallpox vaccination was effective.
This raises an important legal-scientific question:
If a case such as Jacobsen is based on an incorrect scientific presumption, is it no longer good law. Can an appeal maintain that the law has not changed but the science has? I am not aware that this question has been addressed by the law.
THE VACCINE COURT
Fast forward to the 1970s and 1980s, when vaccine makers got sued for a bad DTP vaccine (against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and paid out around $8 billion. There was liability and suits over other vaccines. Vaccine producers threatened to quit making vaccines unless the federal government would grant them immunity against suit.
(This is comparable to the protection which utility companies get in building nuclear power plants by way of the federal government covering insurance costs and storing nuclear waste for 500,000 years or more.)
So in 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The Act created a no-fault Vaccine Court, where claimants would submit their claims for vaccine harms to children. Later the act was extended to cover vaccine harms to adults. The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016, signed by President Obama, extends the Act to cover children harmed as fetuses when their mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy.
As originally written, the Act says that if claimants are not satisfied with the outcome, they could bring suit in state or federal court and have a judge and jury in open court and with pre-trial discovery. But that was to change.
Before 1986 vaccine liability had always been decided according to state law. State law was applied whether suit was filed in state or federal court. In the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Congress federalized all vaccine liability claims. A federal law was passed requiring that all claims for vaccine harm go to a special “Vaccine Court”, where there was and is no jury and no pre-trial discovery. The statute of limitations is tricky and short, and the burden to prove a specific vaccination harmed a child is arbitrarily difficult.
Vaccine makers are shielded against general liability and even for badly designing a vaccine.
Claims are paid out of a fund built up with a tax on each vaccine dose sold. This has led vaccine makers to become reckless, to do insufficient testing of vaccines, and to industrialize the vaccine business.
In a claim for vaccine injury a petitioner can make a “table claim” if the outcome and the vaccine which might cause it is listed on the “table”, if a child is vaccinated and the first indication of harm appears within a certain short period of time, and if a claim is filed with the federal government within three years of the initial reaction.
If these requirements are not met, then the claimant has to prove that the vaccine caused the outcome before the Vaccine Court, which allows no pre-trial discovery and which does not allow juries. From a decision of the Vaccine Court, appeal is difficult, and the Supreme Court case of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth in 2011 made it almost impossible, as discussed below.
THE OMNIBUS CASES
In 1999 the FDA did a study and concluded that there was no proof that mercury Thimerosal was harmful. Nevertheless the FDA ordered the removal or reduction of mercury Thimerosal from most vaccines to be administered to children under six years old. However, the most commonly used flu vaccines do still contain Thimerosal, and are administered to children under age six.
There are other vaccines which contain Thimerosal – DTaP, DT, Td, TT, and Meningococcal.
At some point the FDA stopped doing its own testing. Instead it relies on studies done by vaccine manufacturers. Vaccine manufacturers can withhold unfavorable studies. The FDA should resume doing its own testing.
By 2009 some 5,500 cases had been filed with the Vaccine Court in which claims were made that childhood vaccinations had resulted in autism. To deal with this backlog of autism cases, three sets of three cases, nine cases in all, were chosen to serve as test cases so the Vaccine Court could decide whether a causal connection could exist between autism and three categories of vaccines, 1) the MMR, 2) vaccines containing mercury Thimerosal, and 3) MMR vaccines containing Thimerosal. (Thimerosal was later removed from the MMR).
These nine cases were referred to as the Omnibus cases. Cedillo was one of the lead cases. In Cedillo and the other lead cases the Vaccine Court ruled that vaccines did not cause autism and therefore could not have caused autism in nine cases and in the entire 5,500 cases. Read the decisions made on each level as this case proceeded through the Vaccine Court to the Federal District Court of Appeals.
Cedillo and the other lead plaintiffs went up against government attorneys, who outclassed the private attorneys by successfully attacking the credibility of the petitioners’ expert witnesses. On appeal the Federal Court of Appeals gave deference to the fact findings of the Vaccine Court. In Cedillo vs. HHS the Court upheld the decision of the Vaccine Court.
All 5,500 or so claims were denied.
It was a flagrant violation of the plaintiffs’ right to due process of law.
Authors of the Pace Environmental Law Review in 2011 question the fairness of the way vaccine claims are handled.
BRUESEWITZ V. WYETH
You would think that things could not get any worse for the vaccine injured, but they did. In 2011 the Supreme Court reinterpreted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, one of its worst Supreme Court decisions since Dred Scott. The majority invoked the old rule of unavoidable accident (page 72), saying that injuries from vaccines were “unavoidable” and vaccine producers are exempt from vaccine design errors and manufacturing errors, even if the vaccine could have been designed or manufactured in a better way, as long as candid disclosures and warnings were included in package inserts.
The doctrine of unavoidable accident has been mostly rejected by modern courts. The theory was that people should know taking a vaccine is risky, like taking a flight on the Space Shuttle, and so they are assuming the risk. The majority held that vaccine producers could no longer be sued for faulty vaccine design or faulty vaccine production. They could only be sued for inadequate disclosure.
Package inserts in vaccine boxes are aimed at giving full disclosure so that vaccine producers can avoid all liability. Because package inserts disclose known adverse effects, they should be studied closely. The inserts do not say “safe and effective”. I will review what the package inserts disclose below.
The net result is that vaccine makers, exempt from all liability, have turned necessary vaccination against the most deadly diseases into a mass-production money machine targeted against any and every conceivable disease.
ADVERSE REACTIONS, INCLUDING DEATH
Some vaccines are clearly harmful, such as the MMR and the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. Also harmful are the flu vaccines which contain mercury and the Meningococcal vaccine, which contains mercury. Because some vaccines are harmful and are nevertheless on the CDC list of recommended vaccines, making vaccines mandatory makes no sense.
Since 1986, Health & Human Services reports 669 deaths from the DTP, 84 deaths from flu vaccines, 80 deaths from the DTaP, 57 deaths from the MMR, 54 deaths from the Hepatitis B vaccine, 12 deaths from the HPV Gardasil vaccine, and many more non-fatal adverse reactions.
INEFFECTIVE VACCINES
The ineffectiveness of various vaccines is yet another reason why vaccination should not be mandatory.
A child vaccinated with a live virus vaccine experiences a mild version of the infection and is thus contagious and infects others. Outbreaks of measles and pertussis probably come from the vaccinated, not from the unvaccinated. The artificial immunity conferred by vaccines wears off, and boosters are required, making vaccines a cash machine that generates $30 billion yearly.
EXCIPIENTS, ADJUVANTS, ALUMINUM AND OTHER FILTH IN VACCINES
The HepB, Strep Pneumo, Hib, Gardasil, TDaP, and Meningococcal vaccines contain aluminum. The body can deal with aluminum taken orally and excrete it, but aluminum injected directly into muscle is difficult for the body to excrete and can cause morbidity and mortality.
Aluminum acts as an adjuvant, meaning it provokes an immune reaction.
In doing so aluminum can also promote auto-immune reactions and thus may be even more harmful than mercury.
formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, phenol (carbolic acid), borax (ant killer), ethylene glycol (antifreeze), dye, acetone (nail polish remover), latex, MSG, glycerol, polysorbate 80/20, sorbitol, monkey, cow, chick, pig, sheep and dog tissues and cells (may be contaminated with animal viruses), gelatin, casein, fragments of human fetus cells, human viruses, antibiotics, genetically modified yeast, animal, bacterial and viral DNA (may affect recipient’s DNA).
The rubella, chickenpox, rabies, and hepatitis A vaccines are grown in human fetal umbilical cells.
Regarding vaccines which contain gelatin and pig, dog, and human tissues, vegans and observant Jews and Moslems would have religious grounds to decline to take them.
VACCINES MUST BE GROWN IN A MEDIUM
Vaccines can only grow in a medium. The most common is the chicken egg. Another is green monkey kidney cells. Vaccine producers want to use human cancer cells as a medium because cancer cells are immortal. They do not commit apoptosis, which normal cells do when they are defective or old. The medium will contain many unknown viruses.
The MMR may contain the avian leukemia virus.
GMO INJECTIONS
Vaccines frequently contain genetically modified genes, with genes taken from insects and then injected into our children. Read about a new GMO flu vaccine.
NOT KOSHER, NOT HALAL, NOT ORGANIC, NOT VEGAN
Go to a drug store and ask the pharmacist for as many different package inserts he can give you. You will find that your vaccine might not be kosher because it is made with non-kosher gelatin. It is not halal because it may contain pig. And it may contain the genes of many different species, so it cannot be organic.
The easiest way to keep kosher, halal, or organic is to eat vegan and avoid commercial vaccines.
INFORMED CONSENT – MANDATORY VACCINATION LAWS
Medical ethics guarantees the patient the right of informed consent. It is strange that so many physicians are in favor of eliminating the right to refuse consent regarding all vaccines on the CDC list even though there is evidence that certain vaccines are either not safe, not effective, not necessary, or not legal.
Some vaccines fail on several counts. All drugs and all vaccines involve some risk, which the CDC admits in its publications, although the CDC assures us that serious harm or death is rare.
If the risk of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of enduring the disease, one should have the right to refuse to take the vaccine.
Adults can refuse vaccination for themselves.
They are the guardians of their children.
They know their children’s frailties and previous bad experiences with vaccines. They should have the right to opt their children out.
Washington has recently made it more difficult for parents to decline vaccination for their children. RCW 28A.210.090 provides:
(1) Any child shall be exempt in whole or in part from the immunization measures required by RCW 28A.210.060 through 28A.210.170 upon the presentation of any one or more of the certifications required by this section, on a form prescribed by the department of health:
(a) A written certification signed by a health care practitioner that a particular vaccine required by rule of the state board of health is, in his or her judgment, not advisable for the child: PROVIDED, That when it is determined that this particular vaccine is no longer contraindicated, the child will be required to have the vaccine;
(b) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the religious beliefs of the signator are contrary to the required immunization measures; or
(c) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the signator has either a philosophical or personal objection to the immunization of the child.
(2) (a) The form presented on or after July 22, 2011, must include a statement to be signed by a health care practitioner stating that he or she provided the signator with information about the benefits and risks of immunization to the child. The form may be signed by a health care practitioner at any time prior to the enrollment of the child in a school or licensed day care. Photocopies of the signed form or a letter from the health care practitioner referencing the child’s name shall be accepted in lieu of the original form.
(b) A health care practitioner who, in good faith, signs the statement provided for in (a) of this subsection is immune from civil liability for providing the signature.
(c) Any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child who exempts the child due to religious beliefs pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section is not required to have the form provided for in (a) of this subsection signed by a health care practitioner if the parent or legal guardian demonstrates membership in a religious body or a church in which the religious beliefs or teachings of the church preclude a health care practitioner from providing medical treatment to the child.
(3) For purposes of this section, “health care practitioner” means a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW, a naturopath licensed under chapter18.36A RCW, a physician assistant licensed under chapter 18.71A or 18.57A RCW, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner licensed under chapter 18.79 RCW.
Summary: To obtain a medical exemption the parent needs a certificate from a medical professional. To obtain a religious or philosophical exemption the parent must 1) either be an active member of a denomination which opposes vaccination or perhaps even all medical treatment or 2) if not an active member of such a denomination, also obtain a medical certificate. It is probably illegal to require that a person be a member of a particular religion in order to raise a religious or philosophical objection.
“We know parents care deeply for their children and some are afraid of these vaccines and worry that they cause disease,” Inslee wrote Friday. “I understand their fear, but there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the risks are minuscule and that my grandchildren and your children and grandchildren are safer if we all go to our doctor and get our shots.”
The news for Governor Inslee is that the risks are not miniscule and that some children are not made safer by some vaccines.
The effort to eliminate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions failed in Washington as well as in Oregon.
The suits have begun. Attorney Matthew Phillips filed a well-reasoned suit, I encourage you to read at www.revoltrevokerestore.com. I like it so much I have posted it at the bottom of this page. Read about another suit at www.gofundme.com/sb277lawsuit. Expect a big blow up when school starts in September. I predict an injunction will be filed or at least that parents will rebel.
EASILY DEFRAUDED
Why do we take the word of the many so-called experts who assure us that all vaccines are safe and effective? Probably it is because we have been trained to believe everything which people who wear white coats say.
Mark Twain explained it best:
“It’s much easier to fool someone than to
convince them they have been fooled.”
Examine the evidence for yourself and do your own thinking.
Administration of vaccine in mass quantities should not be mandatory,
and some vaccines should be banned outright.
Until safer and more effective vaccines are developed, it is inappropriate for the state to force injection of possibly harmful drugs on behalf of mega-corporations which are completely immune from all liability for adverse reactions.
LEAKY VACCINES
A leaky vaccine is one which suppresses most symptoms but allows the person who has been vaccinated to spread the disease to others.
A person who is vaccinated for measles or pertussis develops a vaccine version of measles or pertussis. He sheds viruses, and is contagious and can spread the disease – just as well as a person who has contracted measles or pertussis from a “wild” source. This is another reason why making vaccines mandatory makes no sense.
Read more about leaky vaccines at the following links:
HERD IMMUNITY
The justification for making vaccines mandatory – by taking away exemptions for philosophical and religions reasons – is that as many children and adults as possible should be vaccinated in order to protect those who cannot be vaccinated because they are too young, immune compromised, or perhaps pregnant and to interrupt the transmission of disease. This is called the herd immunity theory.
Vaccine refuseniks ask why – if vaccines work – those who are vaccinated should worry about those who are not. The herd immunity theory is the answer given, and it is used to cancel the refuseniks’ right not to consent.
The theory might make sense if vaccines were highly effective, were very safe, and if vaccines themselves were not leaky and did not spread diseases. Many vaccines are effective only to a limited degree and protection wears off. Many vaccines are not safe. And every person injected with a attenuated live virus vaccine develops a vaccine version of the disease, sheds viruses, and can infect others. Thus, the herd immunity theory fails on three counts.
The net result is that parents are required to subject their child to adverse reactions disclosed in the package insert, sometimes very serious reactions, in order to protect some other child from disease, when in fact vaccination does not protect the other child and might even result in transmission of the feared disease to the other child.
A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
If a vaccine causes harm to a person, that is an assault. An assault by government on any level violates of our 5th and 14th Amendment rights by depriving us of life, liberty, and property without due process of law and by abridging a person’s privileges and immunities as citizens.
We have a right to give informed consent to medical procedures, and that includes the right not to consent.
On the other hand states, are asserting the right to require vaccination with all the vaccines on the CDC recommended list. The states assume that the diseases they are vaccinating against would otherwise cause numerous cases of sickness and death, and that the vaccines will prevent all that.
How deadly must a disease be for state government to require administration of a vaccine against it? This question is different for each disease and the vaccine which would prevent it. There is apparently no regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations which sets forth a protocol governing informed consent when human subjects are receiving vaccinations. However, there is a federal protocol governing informed consent when human subjects are receiving experimental drugs which are being tested for safety. See 21 CFR 50.20.
PRO-VAXXER – ANTI-VAXXER
It is said that anti-vaxxers oppose all vaccines. It is said that pro-vaxxers favor all vaccines. No, it is not that simple. Pro-vaxxers admit that vaccine injury does happen, although it is “rare” and that some populations should not receive certain vaccines.
Likewise, most so-called anti-vaxxers favor some vaccines but oppose others. Most so-called anti-vaxxers oppose giving many vaccines all at one time.
Most say they are just asking for safe vaccines.
True anti-vaxxers are rare. They contend that the entire vaccination project is still in a primitive stage and that it is safer to avoid them and risk the disease than to risk the adverse reactions, which everyone admits do happen.
THE TRUST ISSUE
Part of an attorney approach has to be determining which side should be trusted or distrusted. Even apparently safe and effective vaccines contain a weird assortment of worrisome additives, preservatives, and adjuvants such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, antibiotics, and monkey kidney cells. Vaccine makers ship vaccines banned in the West to the Third World, such as the urabi strain MMR vaccine, the dangerous, partially attenuated oral polio vaccine administered in Pakistan, and a tetanus vaccine administered in Africa and Mexico, Central America which causes miscarriages – none of which would inspire one to trust what vaccine makers say. For these reasons it can be argued that vaccine makers should have the burden to prove the safety of each vaccine.
Does this inspire trust in what the vaccine makers say?
THE FUTURE OF VACCINATIONS
Around 90% of all parents accept the current protocol of 49 injections of 14 vaccines by age six. Vaccine manufacturers have scores of new vaccines in development. How many injections of how many vaccines will we be injecting ourselves a decade or a century from now?
Some fear that the acceptance of routine vaccination has created an acceptance of having foreign substances introduced into our bodies against our will. What could that lead to over the coming decades and centuries?
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
It is lazy language to say that vaccines are “safe and effective”, because that implies that all vaccines are safe and effective for all people. In fact, some vaccines have done great harm. If you doubt this, read the findings of the Vaccine Court, which has paid out around $3.0 billion to children for adverse reactions, including death, caused by vaccines.
It is revealing to read the package inserts that come with the vaccine boxes.
Ask the pharmacist for copies. No one ever asks for them and they have a trash can full of them. You may also read them online at www.immunize.org/packageinserts.
When you get there do a word search for “Guillain-Barré”, “Thimerosal”, “has not been evaluated for”, “pregnant”, “precautions”, “warnings”, “contraindications”.
FLU VACCINES
Most but not all flu vaccines contain mercury Thimerosal. Check the
list of vaccines containing Thimerosal and avoid them all.
The commonly used multi-dose Fluzone and the multi-dose FluLavel from GlaxoSmithKline, use Thimerosal as a preservative. Each dose contains 25 micrograms of ethyl mercury. Given that the atomic mass of ethyl mercury (C2H5Hg) is 226, and given that there are 6.02 x 1023 according to Avogadro’s number, 25 mcg = 54 quadrillion atoms of mercury.
25 x 10-6 / 226 x 6.02 x 1023
10-6 x 1023 = 1017
25 / 226 x 6.02 = .5442
.5442 x 1017 = 5.4 x 1016 = 54 x 1015 =
54,000,000,000,000,000 = 54 quadrillion atoms of mercury in each dose
Ethyl mercury is a mitochondrial toxin. It affects cell division.
The FDA ordered Thimerosal removed from vaccines given to children under six and has not rescinded that order. Nevertheless, fetuses, through flu vaccination of their mothers, continue to receive Thimerosal, and the CDC recommends that infants start receiving the flu vaccine yearly starting at six months, all despite the fact that the flu vaccine package insert for Fluzone says that “safety and effectiveness of Fluzone has not been established in pregnant women” and that “Fluzone should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”
The Flulaval disclaimer is similar.
Nevertheless, the fluarix vaccine, which contains mercury Thimerosal, is being given to pregnant women. This is complete malpractice because the mercury passes right through the placenta and into the fetus.
The Novaris Fluvarin multi-dose flu vaccine contains a whopping 25 micrograms of mercury per dose, included as a preservative. The single dose version contains a “trace” amount of mercury Thimerosal, under 1.0 micrograms, only 2.2 quadrillion atoms – still too much for me.
The mercury in the flu vaccine passes through the placenta and is especially toxic to fetus and infant because their cells are dividing rapidly.
Mercury affects cell division.
The use of mercury as a preservative should be banned.
The Fluzone vaccines, regular and high dose, are the only flu vaccines available at the local Bartelle’s where I buy meds. Read the package insert for Fluzone High-Dose, which contains mercury Thimerosal:
If Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has occurred within 6 weeks following previous influenza vaccination, the decision to give Fluzone High-Dose should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks.
There are flu vaccines which are mercury free; however, they are mostly ineffective because of the constantly evolving and changing flu virus.
Flu can be a complicating factor when a person also has pneumonia or some other disease. An estimated 675,000 Unitedstatesians and 50 to 100 million worldwide died from the Spanish flu (thought to have been a swine flu) right after World War I, and so there is great fear of the flu.
Nevertheless, the fear is overblown. By 1918 Bayer had lost its patent on aspirin, and generic aspirin became cheap and flooded the market. The Surgeon General recommended large doses of aspirin to treat flu. Patients were given 8 to 31 grams per day. This is grams not milligrams. Aspirin overdose may have combined with the infection itself to kill those infected.
Do the math. The typical aspirin pill is 375 mg. The maximum daily dose is four grams or 4,000 milligrams. A person taking 31 grams per day (31,000 mg) is taking eight times today’s recommended maximum, and flu victims in 1918 were getting this much day after day. The LD-50 for rats is 200 mg/kg, which is milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Consuming this much acetylsalicylic acid can be life threatening. The LD-50 is the dose at which 50% of subjects are dead and the other 50% will be sick to varying levels. We do not know the LD-50 for humans because it would be unethical to poison humans with various amounts of acetylsalicylic acid in many test groups to see what daily amount of acetylsalicylic acid will kill 50% of the subjects. The LD-50 for humans is often similar to the LD-50 for rats. For a 75 kilogram man (165 pounds) 31,000 mg of aspirin per kilogram would be 413 mg/kg per day, more than double the LD-50 for rats. If flu victims in 1918 had flu and also pneumonia plus toxic doses of acetylsalicylic acid, it is easy to see why so many died.
“Almost 90 years later, in 2008, researchers announced they’d discovered what made the 1918 flu so deadly: A group of three genes enabled the virus to weaken a victim’s bronchial tubes and lungs and clear the way for bacterial pneumonia.”
To sell a lot of flu vaccine, flu vaccine producers remind us of the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918. Flu is generally not to be feared, except for the aged. And there are better ways that vaccination to prevent flu. Dr. Mercola advises that vitamin D supplementation is the most effective way to prevent the flu.
He says: “Be proactive and get vitamin D naturally by exposing your skin to sunlight or take vitamin D3. It’s over the counter and inexpensive. Get your 25 hydroxyvitamin D level checked. It should be 50 to 60 ng/ml.”
Avoid the flu shot however you can. It will weaken your immune system, making it more likely you will get sick from whatever viruses are circulating around, plus the preservatives (mercury, aluminum, ethylene glycol [antifreeze] are neurotoxins, formaldehyde carcinogenic and mutagenic, and the adjuvant squalene oil, which is natural on the skin and in the nervous system, when injected causes the immune system to attack all squalene, including in the nervous system. Squalene vaccine adjuvant has been linked to the devastating Gulf War syndrome autoimmune diseases.
According to the Cochrane Database Review, “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program from 1986 through 2014 admits that program has compensated 1,718 people for adverse effects resulting from the flu vaccines, around 100 of which were for death.
For all these reasons, flu is not a disease one should vaccinate against, even if the vaccine used contains no mercury Thimerosal. And especially the flu vaccine is not one which should be made mandatory.
And even more important: Doctors and hospitals and pharmacies should stop giving flu vaccine to pregnant mothers. It has not been tested for fetal safety.
The package insert says:
There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, Fluzone Quadrivalent should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
[Guinea pigs, not rats – Unlike guinea pigs they make vitamin C in their liver – on demand. Rats are tough you need 1081 to kill them! ]
The package insert makes such frank disclosure because vaccine manufacturers have exemption from liability only if they disclose the worst that can happen.
MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA – MMR
Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D., opposes the MMR. He insists that the link between the MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorder has been confirmed.
Other medical doctors oppose the MMR but support the single dose measles vaccine. Dr. Blaylock criticizes excessive vaccination and administering vaccines too quickly and at too young an age.
Brian Hooker’s published paper, is a comprehensive analysis of the CDC’s own data from 2003 revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.
Brian Hooker’s research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal provides the most recent epidemiologic evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.
Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson recently confirmed that
“the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up.”
He remarked-
“we’ve missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.”
He alleges criminal wrongdoing by his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data.
A re-analysis of data used by a 2002 Danish study by Dr. Samy Suissa of McGill University in Montreal (Canada) found that children who had had the MMR vaccination were 45% more likely to have developed autism than the children who had not had the MMR vaccination.
Measles is not a trifling malady. It can be particularly harmful if one also has pneumonia, although death in the United States is rare. However, measles is not generally fatal as are rabies, tetanus, and Ebola. Deaths from measles cases had declined sharply before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, due to better diet, cleaner drinking water, more and better sewers, and better medical treatment.
The question which must be asked is how many are harmed by the measles vaccine. Since 1986, Health & Human Services reports 57 deaths from the MMR vaccine. One report says that the CDC reports either two or no deaths from measles in the past ten years, while the VAERS database reports 108 deaths from measles vaccines in the same period. It would appear that the potential risk exceeds the potential benefit. In the recent Disneyland measles outbreak none died. A Washington woman died of measles combined with pneumonia.
She had been vaccinated as a child. The same is true for the measles vaccine.
And the pertussis vaccine. See other reports on the ineffectiveness of many vaccines.
One who is vaccinated contracts a vaccine version of the virus and sheds viruses. So those recently vaccinated can transmit the disease just as a person infected with a wild case of measles or pertussis or any other viral disease.
If a pregnant woman experienced wild measles as a child, she is permanently immune to it. She cannot infect her fetus in utero. However, the immunity of a girl who did not contract wild measles as a child but was vaccinated even several times will have lost her immunity by the time she becomes pregnant. If a woman contracts measles while she is pregnant, her fetus may be damaged or may die. The measles vaccine is a live attenuated virus, and like other live attenuated virus vaccines, such as chickenpox,
“Women of childbearing age should be advised not to become pregnant for 3 months after vaccination and should be informed of the reasons for this precaution. … [The MMR II contains] “gelatin”. … Do not give M-M-R II to pregnant females; the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown at this time. … Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with M-M-R II. It is also not known whether M-M-R II can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Therefore, the vaccine should not be administered to pregnant females; furthermore, pregnancy should be avoided for 3 months following vaccination. … “Mumps infection during the first trimester of pregnancy may increase the rate of spontaneous abortion. … Adverse Reactions … Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine”.
ATYPICAL MEASLES
Atypical measles occurs only in those who have been vaccinated against measles, and the disease can be serious, even fatal.
THE MUMPS VACCINE
The mumps vaccine is particularly ineffective. It is also leaky, meaning that those vaccinated contract a vaccine version of the mumps and can infect others.
“Recently, 41 students at Harvard University came down with mumps and, according to the Public Health department in Cambridge, every single one of those students had been vaccinated”.
THE MEDIUM IS PART OF THE MESSAGE
Vaccines can only grow in a medium. The most common is the chicken egg. The medium will contain many viruses, and the MMR may contain the avian leukemia virus.
PREGNANCY
Doctors recommend that pregnant women not get vaccines that use live, attenuated (weakened) viruses, such as the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and chicken pox vaccines. But they strongly recommend that moms-to be do get these two: the flu (influenza) and Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccines.
However, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, M.D. opposes giving any vaccines to pregnant women. I do believe she opposes most or all vaccines as being unsafe, ineffective, and harmful to far too many children.
HEPATITIS B
The hepatitis B vaccination, given at birth, is mostly unnecessary and causes adverse reactions, even death, says Dr. Mercola:
“There are more reports of serious adverse reactions in children than there are cases of childhood hepatitis B reported in America and, despite what you may hear in the media, reactions can be serious”.
An infant can contract hepatitis B from his or her mother during birth if the mother is infected. Yet it is a simple process to test mothers for Hepatitis B infection. Nevertheless, the vaccine industry money-maximization approach is “just vaccinate them all”. Vaccination for hepatitis B is a prerequisite in some states for daycare and school attendance.
“[T]here are more than 16,000 reports of hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following hepatitis B vaccination that have been reported to the U.S. government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since July 1990. There are reports of deaths in infants under one month of age following hepatitis B vaccination in VAERS, with most of the deaths being classified as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), even though SIDS is not historically recognized in the medical literature as occurring in babies under two months of age”.
MENINGOCOCCAL VACCINE
The Meningococcal vaccine is recommended for children starting at nine months of age. The FDA reports that the Saofi Pasteur multi-dose meningococcal vaccine contains 25 micrograms of mercury. There are meningococcal vaccines which do not contain mercury. Read the package insert. It says:
Safety and effectiveness of BEXSERO have not been established in children younger than 10 years of age. Safety and effectiveness of BEXSERO have not been established in adults older than 65 years of age.
Meningococcal disease is serious, but it is also rare and difficult to pass from one person to another. Transfer is typically by exchanging saliva. The most common strain of meningococcal disease is strain B, however, the vaccine does not protect against strain B. Between 20 and 40 percent of us carry the meningococcal virus but do not contract meningococcal disease.
HPV VACCINE – GARDASIL
Gardasil is another risky vaccine. The package insert discloses: “GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity”. The Vaccine Court has paid out damages for 12 deaths from the vaccine and 255 other non-fatal adverse reactions from the Gardasil vaccine.
Read Wayne Rohde’s The Vaccine Court.
The WHO reports: “There are many types of HPV, and many do not cause problems. HPV infections usually clear up without any intervention within a few months after acquisition, and about 90% clear within 2 years. A small proportion of infections with certain types of HPV can persist and progress to cancer”.
Read the Gardasil package insert, which discloses that 40 deaths have resulted from administering Gardasil. The vaccine manufacturer is exempt from liability only if the manufacturer fully discloses all known adverse reactions.
CHICKENPOX-VARICELA
Vaccination for chickenpox (varicella) makes little sense. Chickenpox is a minor disease for children and results in relative immunity. Suppression of chickenpox through vaccination results in only short term protection. Protection wears off.
Most adults do not keep up with their chickenpox vaccinations. Those vaccinated against chickenpox are more subject to contracting shingles as adults, and shingles can be a serious disease for adults. More adults die of adult chickenpox and shingles than were dying from chickenpox before vaccination against it began in 1995.
Chickenpox is most serious for a pregnant mother’s fetus, which can be seriously damaged by the mother’s infection. Most current mothers never had wild chickenpox and so never developed the relative immunity they would have gotten from experiencing wild chickenpox. They were vaccinated against chickenpox, but they probably did not keep up with their vaccinations.
Thus, pregnant mothers are contracting chickenpox. They contract it equally well from unvaccinated children who have the illness and from children vaccinated against chickenpox and shedding viruses.
This shows the irrationality of trying to vaccinate against chickenpox and of making it mandatory that all children be vaccinated against it. Dr. Mercola cites studies showing that vaccinating against chickenpox increases incidence of adult shingles and that the measles vaccine is mostly ineffective.
Using our analysis, the chickenpox vaccine fails the safety requirement, the effectiveness requirement, and the necessity requirement. It only passes the legality test, having been approved by the FDC, but FDC approval should be withdrawn. Chickenpox is not a disease we should vaccinate against.
Do not administer VARIVAX to females who are pregnant; the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown. Pregnancy should be avoided for 3 months following vaccination with VARIVAX
The following adverse reactions have been reported:
Anaphylaxis (including anaphylactic shock) and related phenomena such as angioneurotic edema, facial edema, and peripheral edema. Eye Disorders Necrotizing retinitis (in immunocompromised individuals). Hemic and Lymphatic System Aplastic anemia; thrombocytopenia (including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)). Infections and Infestations Varicella (vaccine strain). Nervous/Psychiatric Encephalitis; cerebrovascular accident; transverse myelitis; Guillain-Barré syndrome; Bell’s palsy; ataxia; non-febrile seizures; aseptic meningitis; dizziness; paresthesia. Respiratory Pharyngitis; pneumonia/pneumonitis. Skin Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiform; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; secondary bacterial infections of skin and soft tissue, including impetigo and cellulitis; herpes zoster.
Dr. Mercola advises: “If you do develop shingles, as I mentioned earlier this summer, you can use topical honey to treat shingles symptoms and it appears to work better than the drugs.”
SMALLPOX
We are fortunate that smallpox has been eradicated. Eradication was possible because no other species carry smallpox, and once it was eradicated in humans, there was no non-human reservoir from which it could reemerge.
It is commonly believed that it was the smallpox vaccine that eradicated smallpox; however, this is impossible because only 10 percent of the population was ever vaccinated. Quarantine was possibly responsible for the demise of smallpox. The smallpox vaccine caused serious side effects, actually spread smallpox, and was generally ineffective.
A TWISTED SYSTEM
The FDA does not do its own testing. The FDA approves vaccines and other drugs based on studies done by the pharmaceutical companies, which can withhold studies which question safety or effectiveness.
MEDIA ANALYSIS – WAKEFIELD
It is amazing just how manipulated the media is when it comes to the issue of vaccination. I have to wonder if editors ever took high school biology and chemistry. They seem to lack the ability to think for themselves. Every mention of Andrew Wakefield, for example, refers to him as “discredited”, when in fact he has been clearly vindicated.
The Los Angeles Times and the The Daily Herald of Everett printed an article entitled “Vaccine ignorance proving deadly and contagious”. It was written not by physicians or scientists but by prominent members of the Council on Foreign Relations. It contains numerous inaccuracies – scientific, historical, and legal.
Wakefield was denounced as a vaccine denier, although he supported and continues to supports the single dose measles vaccine, as well as other single dose vaccines. He only opposed the MMR, a combined injection. Combined vaccines can be more harmful than single vaccines. For questioning the safety of one extremely profitable vaccine combo, Wakefield was “lynched” by GlaxoSmithCline and the medical establishment.
Wakefield’s results have been replicated in at least 28 studies done by scientists in other countries. Further, Wakefield has great insight in how to treat children who have had adverse vaccine reactions. His approach is to start with the stomach, because gastric problems are tied to the autistic symptoms.
Cure the stomach problem and the adverse vaccine reaction will cure itself.
Wakefield was expelled from the medical profession in Great Britain, however, John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of the offending 1998 study, challenged his expulsion and was recently reinstated, an indication that Wakefield could be reinstated if he applied. Wakefield works in Texas as a researcher and is suing Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of fraud.
Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Dr. Andrew Wakefield issued the following statement today on the recent British Medical Journal articles:
“The British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer recently alleged that my 1998 research paper was ‘a hoax’ and ‘an elaborate fraud’ and that my motivation was profit.
“I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.
“I stand by the Lancet paper’s methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries (to see citations to studies, visit http://tinyurl.com/4hrdt5y.)
“It is not unexpected to see poor reporting and misinformation coming from Brian Deer, the lead reporter of the recent BMJ coverage. But to see coverage in other media that cites Deer’s shoddy journalism in the BMJ as a final justification to claim there is no link between vaccines and autism is ludicrous. The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion. Any medical professional, government official or journalist who states that the case is closed on whether vaccines cause autism is jumping to conclusions without the research to back it up.
“I continue to fully support more independent research to determine if environmental triggers, including vaccines, are causing autism and other developmental problems. The current rate of autism is 1 in 110 children in the United States and 1 in 64 children in the U.K. My goal has always been and will remain the health and safety of children. Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country. To claim that my motivation was profit is patently untrue. I will not be deterred – this issue is far too important.”
Contact: Esther Bochner, Ebochner@skyhorsepublishing.com, 212-643-6816×224
Dr. Wakefield has produced and directed a movie named VAXXED, regarding Dr. Thompson. It was to be shown at the Tribeca Film Festival. Pro-vaccination forces pressured Robert DeNiro to pull the movie, and DeNiro caved. Now DeNiro is regretting that he yielded to the pressure. The movie is not about Wakefield, but in telling how the CDC eliminated data which would have proven that the MMR vaccine does cause autism, it vindicates Wakefield.
VACCINE DENIERS
Who is a vaccine denier? A mother who questions the safety of a vaccine containing mercury, aluminum, MSG, antibiotics, eggs, or formaldehyde, or Beta HCG hormone, or the urabi virus is not a vaccine denier. Dr. Susan Humphries points out that HepB, Strep Pneumo, Hib and Meningococcal vaccines contain aluminum, which acts as an adjuvant to provoke an artificial immune reaction.
A mother is not a denier if her child is frail or has already had an adverse vaccine reaction and she chooses to opt her child out. She is not a denier if she questions giving children 49 injections of 14 vaccines by age six, and 130 if you live to age 78, many containing mercury Thimerosal, including a vaccine at birth for hepatitis B, a disease usually infecting IV drug users and those who sell sexual services.
Nor is a mother a denier if she declines the CDC recommendation that she take the flu vaccine (containing mercury) when she is pregnant, even though the flu vaccine is not tested for safety for pregnant women and fetuses and the FDA advises it be used “only if clearly needed”.
Most are not harmed by vaccines, but some are. For proof read the decisions of the Vaccine Court, which has paid out some $3.0 billion and has acknowledged that specific vaccines have caused specific harms. See the package inserts which comes in vaccine boxes. Ask your pharmacist for copies.
PROPOSED LEGAL CHANGES
The Vaccine Court should be shut down or dramatically reformed. Plaintiffs should retain the right to appeal any decision to real courts with real juries.
Medical schools and dental schools should be barred from accepting donations from pharmaceutical and chemical corporations.
To prevent elected officials from being bought, elections should be paid for from public funds. Newspaper, television, radio coverage should be provided for each candidate. This would be expensive, but it would be less expensive than the current system.
The revolving door must be closed. No person who has ever worked for a pharmaceutical corporation on an administrative level should be allowed to work for a federal regulatory agency.
Conversely, any person who has worked for a federal or state regulatory agency who goes to work for a pharmaceutical company or a chemical company, should be required to rebate back to the agency all compensation received in excess of what that person would have been earning had he stayed with the agency.
CONCLUSIONS
I am not opposed to vaccines which have been proven to be safe, effective, necessary, legal, and not to be leaky. However, few of them pass these tests.
For such reasons, vaccination should not be made mandatory.
Vaccination should be a technology aimed at the most deadly and contagious diseases. Vaccines should be employed only against potentially fatal diseases which progress so fast that the body cannot respond before death occurs, such as rabies.
Vaccines must be grown in a medium known not to be infected with harmful viruses. Vaccines should be put into use only after careful testing. Because adverse reactions are inevitable with any drug, vaccines should not be used to prevent diseases which are rarely fatal and which can be dealt with through quarantine and special treatment.
The Vaccine Court should be abolished, and those harmed by vaccines should have the right to sue in the courts. If the Vaccine Court system is maintained, plaintiffs should have the right to appeal to the courts if they are not satisfied with the Vaccine Court result.
The concept of vaccination is not one which should be rejected completely,
but it should be used with restraint.
PRIMITIVE
The science of vaccination is still in a primitive stage, and it is inappropriate for the state to force injection of a possibly harmful drug on behalf of mega-corporations which are completely immune from all liability for adverse reactions.
SUMMARY BY IMMUNOLOGIST
Harvard PhD Immunologist Destroys SB277’s Faulty Logic
With Open Letter to Legislators
Thanks to:
(NaturalNews)
SB277 is the rule of law in California. The state is no longer allowing most vaccine exemptions for children hoping to attend public schools. The law, at its very core, is designed to “smoke out” those who choose to resist all vaccines or just some of them. The legislation hopes to bring fear to those who may be on the fence about whether or not to vaccinate their children. Pharmaceutical companies backed the bill which they hope keeps revenue flowing by keeping people “in compliance.”
(Article by Gary Barnes, republished from http://truthkings.com)
But not every medical researcher is on the pharmaceutical companies take.
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., is speaking out on the matter and condemning the state, its legislators and the pharmaceutical companies for what is a blatant disregard for parental rights and science. She breaks down the failed concept of “herd immunity” and regards the Disney measles cases as mostly propaganda. This is her letter:
Dear Legislator:
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding
that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
-
IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
-
Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
-
While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
-
The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.[1]
-
Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters (see appendix for the CDC document, Item #3), meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
-
Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
-
Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?
Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“THE APPARENT PARADOX IS THAT AS MEASLES IMMUNIZATION
RATES RISE TO HIGH LEVELS IN A POPULATION, MEASLES
BECOMES A DISEASE OF IMMUNIZED PERSONS.”[2]
Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles” within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.[3]
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait.[4] The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.[5]
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.[6] – [7]
Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.
Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?
The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.
Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.
Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).
In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.
Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.
Sincerely Yours,
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
BOOKS AND LINKS
Inadequate Vaccine Safety Research and Conflicts of Interest
Doctor invited to Oregon Senate says he prevents autism by not vaccinating his patients.
THE TRUTH BEHIND MASS VACCINATION
What Are We Doing to Our Children’s Brains?
10 SIGNS OF NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN CHILDREN
Following Your Inner Compass: Rejecting Flu Vaccine in Pregnancy
The Amish Don’t Get Autism but They Do Get Bio-Terrorism
People Take to the Streets Protesting CDC
New Polio Vaccine Rollout Comes With A Big Risk
Vaccine Protest In Beijing And High School Toxic Waste Scandal Pose Credibility Challenge For China’s Government
Government Announces Plans To Spray Seattle With ‘GMO Bacteria’
Patient complaints about Dr. David Gorski are just the beginning… why Karmanos Cancer Institute patients must save their own lives from mentally deranged doctors
Capitol Hill arrests in pro-democracy protest hit 1,240
BEWARE of “Standard of Care”
A JOURNEY TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC
Harvard researchers link fluoridated water to ADHD, autism and other childhood mental health disorders
VAXXED: Caller Gets Schooled on Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Honest Disagreement in a Pro-Vaccine World
VAXXED MOVIE REVIEW
(By One of Americas Top Voted Pediatricians) | Dr. Paul
Glutathione, Tylenol, Vaccine Adverse Reactions, and ASD
CDC Vaccine Advisor Pockets $29 Million Promoting Vaccines
The Low Dose Makes the Poison- EDC’s & the Chemical Manipulation of Humanity
California lawsuit filed by attorney Matthew Phillips:
Prologue: “They can put anything they want in that vaccine and they have no accountability for it.” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
On June 30, 2015, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 277, which takes effect on July 1, 2016. [Senate Bill No. B 277: “An act to amend Sections 120325, 120335, 120370, and 120375 of, to add Section 120338 to, and to repeal Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health.”]
SB 277 removes the “personal beliefs” exemption as a basis for parents to opt-out of state mandated “immunization” requirements for schoolchildren. Plaintiffs oppose this tyrannical bill because it wrongfully places the interests of the national vaccine market above the interests of California children; and sadly, this is a symptom of a larger sickness that debilitates the nation. America stands alone; we are the only nation on Earth in which healthcare is dispensed first and foremost to create shareholder value, and only secondarily for health-related reasons, and even then, with little or no regard for patients’ rights as individuals.
SB 277 provides that students will be admitted to school only upon proof of “immunization” against a minimum of ten (10) different childhood diseases. The State hopes to reach a goal of “total immunization,” (is such goal possible?), by injecting into children’s bodies whichever chemicals or ingredients the State, in its sole discretion, and ineffable wisdom, deems necessary and appropriate.
In furtherance of this stated goal — “total immunization” — the State openly and notoriously declares it will take the extreme and outrageous step of denying California children their fundamental right to go to school — regardless of parents’ “personal beliefs,” including their sincerely held philosophic, conscientious, and religious objections to State-mandated immunization. Plaintiffs seek to strike down SB 277 and restore the “personal beliefs” exemption to all State-mandated vaccine programs for California schoolchildren. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction forever halting SB 277.
If SB 277 takes effect, California will be left with a decidedly “segregated” school system — vaxxed and unvaxxed — where many children will suffer invidious discrimination based on “medical status” (a protected class under California law). Under a Brown vs. Board of Education analysis, such a bifurcated school system — vaxxed and unvaxxed — reeks of “separate-but-equal,” and thus, cannot be allowed to stand. Under California law, segregation based on “medical status” is every bit as odious as segregation based on “race,” “creed” or “color.” [See Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, (1954) 347 U.S. 483]
Plaintiffs sue to enforce their children’s constitutional right to an education regardless of “immunization status” (i.e., “medical status”), and also to enforce a parent’s rights to exercise “personal beliefs” in opposition to State-mandated immunization requirements by asserting their own various philosophic objections, (“Herd immunity is fraud!”), conscientious objections, (“My family is Vegan!”), and religious objections, (“Aborted fetal cells?–No way!”).
SB 277 violates the children’s fundamental right to attend school, (Calif. Const. Art. 9, Sec. 5), and it also violates the parents’ fundamental right to freely exercise their “personal beliefs” (Free Exercise Clause, First Amendment).
Plaintiffs cannot understate the historical significance and sheer weight of the First Amendment; the right to “freely exercise religion” forms the very cornerstone of democracy. Plaintiffs believe The Founders placed “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment because it is the most fundamental of all rights, quite literally, the number one most cherished right of free-thinking people.
The Free Exercise Clause protects the individual in his or her free expression of “personal beliefs” — especially those beliefs that run contrary to the State. The First Amendment allows individuals to freely exercise “personal beliefs” and freely make their own joyful noise without leave or hindrance from the State. This lawsuit recognizes no public health crisis; rather, this lawsuit champions civil liberties, personal freedoms, and restores the rights of the individual.
Plaintiffs steadfastly refuse to surrender their constitutional right to exercise “personal beliefs” — i.e., their sincerely held philosophic, conscientious, and religious objections to State-mandated immunization; furthermore, Plaintiffs refuse to surrender their children’s constitutional right to go to school.
Plaintiffs should not be required to surrender one constitutional right to get to another. Plaintiffs should not be placed in the untenable position of having to choose between the right to educate their children, (Calif. Const. Art. 9, Sec. 5), and the right to freely exercise their “personal beliefs” in opposition to State-mandated immunization, (Free Exercise Clause, First Amendment).
Plaintiffs seek a court order striking down SB 277 as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in order to preserve the status quo and to halt enforcement of SB 277. [California Health & Safety Code §§120325 – 20380].
Most significantly, SB 277 implicates “fundamental rights,” chiefly, the children’s fundamental right to go to school, (Calif. Constitution), and the parents’ fundamental right to freely exercise their “personal beliefs,” (First Amendment). The “right to go to school” and the “right to freely exercise personal beliefs” are constitutional rights, and thus, “fundamental” rights.
Where, as here, “fundamental rights” are at stake, courts must employ a heightened level of judicial review, “strict scrutiny.” Under a “strict scrutiny” analysis, this Court must strike down SB 277 because, when all’s said, the State’s interest in educating children is necessarily more compelling than its interest in vaccinating them.
Here, because Plaintiffs allege violations of fundamental rights, the burden of proof “shifts” to the State to demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” in SB 277, and further, the State has the burden to demonstrate that Sacramento lawmakers “narrowly tailored” SB 277 to achieve only that specific governmental interest, with no “less-restrictive means” available.
The stated goal of SB 277 is the “total immunization” of all California schoolchildren. [See Calif. H&S Code §120325(a)] However, this Orwellian goal of “total immunization,” is factually impossible to achieve, and thus, the State, as a matter of law, can never meet its legal burden, and Plaintiffs thus prevail.
Why is the goal of “total immunization” impossible? As a threshold matter, and this is most significant, vaccine makers do not guarantee any “immunization.” And, because vaccine makers do not guarantee any “immunization,” it is factually impossible for vaccinated children to guarantee “immunization” to the State, and, ipso facto, it’s impossible to achieve the stated goal of “total immunization.”
Assuming vaccine makers file motions to intervene in the instant litigation, Plaintiffs are confident that vaccine makers will corroborate the fact that their vaccines come with absolutely, positively zero guarantees, warranties, or promises, express or implied, of any kind whatsoever. None!
Bending to the will of the national vaccine market, the State-mandated “immunization” program is built on a faulty premise; the State, (wittingly or unwittingly?), labors under the false premise that vaccination always results in “immunization,” but Plaintiffs reemphasize — this is flatly false.
Plaintiffs argue there can be no “compelling governmental interest” in the stated goal of “total immunization” simply because such goal is impossible; and the impossibility factor lay in the irrefutable premise that vaccines come with no guarantee of “immunization.”
Forgetting for a moment what may be dubious motives underlying this goal of “total immunization,” Plaintiffs point out the availability of “less-restrictive means” of achieving such a goal (if indeed it be a worthwhile goal); for example, where parents are concerned about “immunization,” such parents are always free to “immunize,” if they so choose, or where parents are concerned about disease prevention generally, they are free to seek advice or treatment consistent with their own “personal beliefs” (philosophic, conscientious, and religious).
And, where the State has legitimate concern about disease prevention, (unrelated to concerns for the national vaccine market), the State may undertake disease-prevention awareness; but ultimately, all decisions regarding whether to “immunize” must be made by the parents, not the State.
It is worth noting that SB 277 is conspicuously silent as to the words “vaccine” or “vaccination.” Remarkable as it sounds, neither the words “vaccine” nor “vaccination” ever appear at SB 277; and Plaintiffs were surprised when they learned this! Most notably, SB 277 uses only the term “immunization,” (but never the term “vaccination”). And this is quite significant because, of course, there is a world of difference between “vaccination” and “immunization.”
The term “immunization” is a conclusion that a disease-fighting shield is in effect; whereas, by contrast, the term “vaccination” refers to a one-time medical event that (ostensibly) leads to “immunization.” The language of Sacramento lawmakers is clear and unambiguous — no vaccines required! SB 277 requires only “immunization,” and Plaintiffs’ children are already naturally “immunized.”
The State’s interest in achieving “total immunization” must necessarily take a backseat to the California Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to free, public education. [Calif. Const., Art. 9, Sec. 5] The California Supreme Court stands firmly on this fundamental right, stating: “[S]ociety has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.” [Serrano v. Priest, (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257].
The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions. [Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. Health, (1990) 497 U.S. 261, 278] And, when it comes to the children’s best interests, it is the parents, not the State, who shall have the right to make healthcare decisions. A child is not a “mere creature of the State.” [Parham v. J.R., (1979) 422 U.S. 584] Plaintiffs contend that SB 277 wrongfully removes the parents as decision-makers and wrongfully delegates decision-making to the State.
The U.S. Supreme Court also recognizes the fundamental interest of parents, in contrast with that of the State, to guide the religious education of their children. Western history and culture “reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children which the State should not ignore.” [Wisconsin vs. Yoder,(1972) 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15]
Plaintiffs believes the Court may take judicial notice of the fact that vaccines maim and kill children. The horror of this reality is mind-numbing. And, in too many instances, vaccines turn out to be more injurious and more deadly than the predicate diseases for which the vaccines were administered in the first place. For example, over the past ten years, the number of schoolchildren who have died from the MMR vaccine far outpaces the number of measles deaths (if any). In fact, the MMR vaccine has a disastrous “success” rate of killing approximately one American child, every month, for the last ten years; sadly, when it comes to measles “immunization,” it’s hard to tell the poison from the cure.
Back in 1986, seeking to stabilize the national vaccine market, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, [42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34; (“The Act”)], and since its creation, the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, (“VICP”), has paid-out more than three billion dollars (taxpayer money) on vaccine injury and wrongful death claims.
The Act protects the national vaccine market by forbidding would-be plaintiffs from suing vaccine makers at the county courthouse; the Act instead funnels plaintiffs into an arbitration quagmire — which has no legal mechanism to subpoena industry documents that might tend to prove things like vaccine design defects or manufacturing defects. The Act further protects vaccine makers by relieving them of having to pay monetary compensation to vaccine victims; the Act instead saddles taxpayers with the burden of funding injury compensation. The purpose of the Act is to stabilize the national vaccine market by allowing vaccine makers to dodge jury trials and class action lawsuits.
The Act bestows upon the national vaccine market what amounts to almost total immunity from liability — and Congress generously heaped this special dispensation on vaccine makers because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Even if properly designed and manufactured in strict accordance with FDA rules, vaccines nevertheless remain “unavoidably unsafe.” [Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, (2011) 562 U.S. 223, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 1089, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1]
“But for” the Act, jury trials and class action lawsuits would destabilize the national vaccine market — then overwhelm and capsize it — because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Without the Act’s protection, vaccine makers would lose every lawsuit and be driven out-of-business by personal injury lawyers.
Tragically, instead of removing “unavoidably unsafe” products from the marketplace, Congress instead removed the specter of liability, and this in turn removed all incentive for vaccine safety. So now, when vaccines kill or maim, vaccine makers pay no monetary damages to the victims — because Congress foisted that duty upon the American taxpayer — who must “bail out” vaccine makers for their negligent design and manufacturing defects.
Again, even if a vaccine is free of design defect and manufacturing defect, it nevertheless remains “unavoidably unsafe” as a matter of law. When rendering final judgement, Plaintiffs pray the court will acknowledge this irrefutable premise, i.e., that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”
The popular media pretends that vaccines are “safe and effective,” but this is a blatant falsehood; as a matter of law, all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” and for this reason alone, parents are wise to opt-out of mandatory immunization because sometimes, indeed, all too often, vaccines go wrong.
Perhaps most disturbing of all, when vaccines go wrong, vaccine makers are utterly incapable of explaining “why.” But this comes as no surprise because vaccine makers are just as incapable of explaining “how” their vaccines (supposedly) bring about immunization.
Plaintiffs view all vaccine makers with mistrust and suspicion because: (i) vaccine makers do not guarantee “immunization;” (ii) persons injured by vaccines cannot sue vaccine makers at the county courthouse; (iii) taxpayers must subsidize the vaccine maker’s design defects, manufacturing defects, personal injury claims and wrongful death claims; and (iv) all vaccines are deemed “unavoidably unsafe” due to the ever-present risk of death or great bodily injury; and (v) vaccine makers cannot explain how their products work, nor why they fail.
The United States Court of Appeals recognizes that medical science is a “field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.” [Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005)]
Science cannot explain “why” vaccines kill, nor can science predict “who” will next suffer vaccine injuries or “when.” Under a simple cost-benefit analysis, the “costs” associated with vaccines clearly outweigh any “benefit” — because vaccines come with no immunization guarantee and instead carry the very palpable risk of death.
SB 277 violates the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and their children. Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that declares SB 277 unconstitutional, and further, restrains The State of California from enforcing SB 277 and its “immunization” mandates.
Epilogue: Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government out of your body.
Dated: April 22, 2016 Law Offices of T. Matthew Phillips
