Archive for the ‘vaccines’ Category

Corporate Lobbying Group ALEC Behind Mandatory Vaccine Agenda

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/corporate-lobbying-group-alec-behind-mandatory-vaccine-agenda?

Corporate Lobbying Group ALEC Behind Mandatory Vaccine Agenda


Originally published on www.sott.net

Over the last several months, Americans have witnessed an increase in media propaganda regarding the “dangers” of “anti-vaxxers,” the “proven science of vaccines,” and the “tragedies” that ensue from the failure to vaccinateThat propaganda blitz has resulted in massive hysteria stemming from similar levels of ignorance.

Also resulting from the push by Big Pharma-funded corporate media outlets is the emotional and panicked campaign of pro-vaxxers, vaccine pushers, and adherents to the relatively recent new religion of “scientism” – the religious belief in anything labeled as science or scientific, regardless of whether or not that concept directly contradicts observable reality and experience or even regardless of whether or not it is actually scientific.

The so-called vaccine debate – which is not truly a debate since a debate requires the participation of two opposing sides – is generally nothing more than a shouting and shaming campaign against parents who have come to the conclusion that vaccines are not safe, effective, or neither.

Indeed, it is the unbridled emotion of the pro-vaccine camp that has been provoked and subsequently harnessed into a powerhouse of vitriol and social pressure that is then presented as a public health crisis. The howling of the trendy masses, glued to their televisions, sitcoms, and NPR, is then presented as an organic public outcry in the media, resulting in the conveniently timed response of politicians and lawmakers.

Of course, with the creation of the false debate, there is also the political polarization of the issue – the left must be pitted against the right – in a typical but tried and true method of divide and conquer strategy.

Originally, holding questions regarding the safety or effectiveness of vaccinations was something that bridged political boundaries. Granted, the individuals who held these views were a minority. However, those numbers were growing and could be found in the midst of liberals and conservatives, libertarians and socialists, and even those completely unaligned to any ideology.

Now, however, that is beginning to change. The Big Pharma companies that fund the mainstream media and the political parasites infecting the federal and state capitols have managed to turn this debate into a partisan issue.

The propaganda campaign has been successful among members of all political denominations, but particularly so among the left. This is because the left is made up of a population that is well-trained to believe anything presented to them under the guise of science in much the same way as the right who are designed to believe anything presented in a religious context.

The result of this massive absorption of indoctrination is that we have the passage of bills mandating that children be vaccinated by force of law in California and even the attempt to force adults to be vaccinated as well.

With mandates coming out of California, North Carolina, and Vermont, clearly there is a nationwide agenda at foot.

But while those on the left continue to attack Koch Industries and ALEC for funding a number of horrific economic policies and divisive domestic campaigns, painting any idea they oppose coming from the Republican camps as a “Koch-funded” program (it often is), the reality is that the leftists are the biggest dupes in the vaccine game.

This is because, while leftists hawk vaccines and pride themselves on their obedience to doctors and “scientists,” they are doing nothing more than falling into line with a massive Koch-funded and ALEC-facilitated propaganda campaign.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

For those who may not be familiar with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the council is considered a “non-profit organization” made up of Conservative state legislators and corporate private sector “partners.” This mixture of government officials and corporate agents then meet regularly, replete with funding from major corporations all across the world to discuss, plan, write, and submit legislation that is beneficial to the corporations.

In one sense, ALEC is a massive corporate lobbying firm. In another, however, ALEC is much more, since much of the legislation submitted by the attentive congressman is actually written for the Senator or Representative by the agents of the organization. It is an organization that provides funding and direction (marching orders) for Congressmen, particularly those at the state level.

While slimy billionaires like George Soros act as the guiding force behind much of the American left, ALEC and KOCH Industries tend to fill the same void for the right; although, in truth, most of the corporations that make up ALEC are those who also fund Democratic candidates. Presentation, however, in a carefully crafted political theatre like the United States, is paramount.

As Alan Greenblatt describes the organization in his article for Governing,

For decades, the American Legislative Exchange Council has been a force in shaping conservative policies at the state level. Today, its impact is even more pervasive. Its legislative ideas are resonating in practically every area of state government, from education and health to energy, environment and tax policy. The group, which brings together legislators with representatives from corporations, think tanks and foundations to craft model bills, has rung up an impressive score. Roughly 1,000 bills based on ALEC language are introduced in an average year, with about 20 percent getting enacted.

Brendan Greeley of Bloomberg Business describes ALEC in a similar fashion. He writes,

For three decades, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the meeting’s host, has brought together corporations (including Pfizer (PFE), AT&T (T), and ExxonMobil (XOM)) and state legislators to write what it calls model bills–pieces of legislation the industries would like to become law. Often this means protecting favored tax treatment or keeping regulations at bay. ALEC has also approved model bills on social issues, including gun control and voter registration. The bills then get passed around among the 1,800 mostly Republican legislators who are ALEC members. They introduce the model bills about 1,000 times a year in state capitols around the country, the group says. About 200 become law. ALEC pays for the meetings through membership fees (called donations) that corporations pay. The legislators receive travel stipends (called scholarships) to attend the meetings. ALEC is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit that provides a public service, not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence.

This offers two benefits: Corporate members can deduct yearly dues, which run up to $25,000–more if they want to sponsor meetings; and ALEC doesn’t have to disclose the names of legislators and executives who attend. That’s important, because if ALEC operated with complete openness it would have difficulty operating at all. ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because it’s done its work behind closed doors. Membership lists were secret. The origins of the model bills were secret. Part of ALEC’s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work. If this were to become clear to everyone, there’d be no reason for corporations to use it.

While ALEC has pushed a number of bills regarding divisive wedge issues (it has to keep up its conservative veneer), it focuses mostly on economic issues promoting free market, Austrian school, deregulation, free trade, and other policies supported by major banks and corporations.

But ALEC is also a major pusher of laws regarding medical issues – not merely in the context of the American healthcare system, but also in the context of personal choice.

Despite all the rhetoric of ALEC and its puppets in Congress, the position of the organization and its puppets is not necessarily in favor of personal choice. This much has been made clear in the form of mandates and force of law, particularly in the area of vaccination.

This should not be surprising considering ALEC’s many Big Pharma members. While the organization is made up of a plethora of major corporations Big Pharma makes up a sizable portion of its ranks.

Below are a very small few of pharmaceutical companies that are part of ALEC’s operations.

  • Astellas Pharma Inc.
  • Bayer
  • Dupont (Dupont Merck Pharmaceuticals)
  • Eli Lilly
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals
  • Express Scripts
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Hoechst- Roussell Pharmaceutical Corporation
  • Hoffman La-Roche
  • Imperial Chemical Industries Pharmaceuticals
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Pharmacia and UpJohn
  • Purdue Pharma
  • Pfizer
  • Solvay Pharmaceutical
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical
  • TEVA Pharmaceuticals
  • TogetherRX Access (made up of ABBVIE, GSK, Janssen, Lifescan, Pfizer, Stiefel, Viiv Healthcare, Vistakon Pharmaceuticals)
  • The UpJohn Co.

These names are only a small few of the myriad of pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, and other interested parties who are listed as members of ALEC. Many of these companies are concealed even further by a veil of umbrella “organizations” acting as front operations.

ALEC And Vaccines

With such a massive list of major pharmaceutical companies amidst ALEC’s ranks, it should come as no real surprise that ALEC would be one of the driving forces behind the recent spate of “mandatory vaccine bills” popping up all across the country. Indeed, its motto should be “Personal Choice For Corporations. Government Enforced Mandates For People.”

Remember, it was ALEC that crafted the “model” legislation “Immunization of Minors On TANF,” legislation that would have required parents on TANF assistance to require proof that their children were fully vaccinated according to the “recommended” levels. If those families did not show proof of their child’s vaccination, those families would lose their TANF benefits.

While exemptions were left intact in this “model” legislation, ALEC has stepped up its attack on parental rights by going after the exemption status in later bills.

For instance, consider the attempt to remove Vermont citizens’ rights to a philosophical exemption to vaccination known as SB 199, a bill that caught many in Vermont by complete surprise. Of course, when one takes a look at the key players and possible motivations, it becomes more obvious as to how this bill came to be and why.

SB 199 was submitted in the Senate by ALEC’s Vermont Chair Senator, Kevin Mullin, and in the House by a notorious vaccine pusher and vaccine damage denier. As Barbara Loe Fisher writes for National Vaccine Information Center,

S199 was introduced in the state Senate by Kevin Mullin, who is VT chair of the Pharma-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and was introduced in the state House by Representative George Till, M.D., at the request of Harry Chen, M.D., Vermont’s Health Commissioner. Dr. Chen, who was a Vermont state representative and former chair of the Vermont House Health Care Committee for four years, has publicly downplayed vaccine risks.

S199 was supported by the VT Dept. of Health and state government supported institutions, such as the University of Vermont, as well as medical trade associations that receive money from pharmaceutical corporations selling vaccines in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), March of Dimes, Every Child by Two and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Other organizations endorsing elimination of the philosophical exemption included the Vermont Academy of Family Physicians, Fletcher Allen, Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Voices for VT Children, Vermont Pharmacists Association, Rutland Medical Center, and Vermont Medical Society.

Edward Kentish seconded Fisher’s criticism in his op-ed for VTDigger.com when he wrote,

Here ALEC’s Vermont chairman, Republican Sen. Kevin Mullin, introduced S.199, a bill seeking to end the “philosophical exemption” in the childhood vaccine laws. A Republican introducing a health care bill, one that removes a parent’s rights, one that obliges all children to participate in a health care plan. … An ugly duckling if ever there was one! Just doesn’t look like all the rest.

The duckling looks even uglier in the light of Vermont’s exemplary health statistics. We rank right up there on general health, low incidence of infectious diseases, and low child mortality. What’s the problem, what motivates such a bill? Well, several corporations have recently publicly cut their ties with ALEC over ALEC’s Stand Your Ground gun laws, underscoring the reality that ALEC is funded by corporations, and we may guess has their interests at heart more than your child’s well-being.

One might be tempted to argue that the vaccine bill submitted in Vermont was merely an anomaly. That is, one would be tempted to make this argument if the Vermont bill was the only such bill submitted and supported by ALEC and its members.

In California, the infamous and fascist SB 277 which unfortunately became law was introduced by another vaccine fanatic and high priest of the religion of scientism, Richard Pan. Ben Allen, however, the second State Senator to introduce the legislation into the California state Senate is himself connected to ALEC. As Maureen Cruise of LA Progressive wrote in regards to Allen’s funding,

Among other wealthy conservative donors are William E. Oberndorf, a California billionaire investor who funds conservative causes such as the privatization of education which he promotes via the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He has contributed to the Karl Rove PAC and to Jeb Bush and the GW Bush Foundation. The Fisher Family of Gap and a dozen other corporations are fans of privatization of the public sector and charter schools.

Oberndorf, the ALEC big wig, is a major donor of Allen.

Cruise also points out that a sizable portion of Allen’s campaign contributions come directly from pharmaceutical interests.

A similar story is discovered in North Carolina, where notoriously arrogant and corrupt Senator Jeff Tarte – in between fits of whining and rage – introduced a bill that would have removed all vaccine exemption rights (except for medical exemptions) from parents and children, including homeschool children.

As if his last name did not accurately describe his disposition, Senator Tarte was one of the main sponsors of the NC bill SB 346, a bill that would have eliminated the “religious exemption” clause in the recommended vaccine schedule for children entering NC public schools. He was also a main contender for the title of worst public relations interaction with a constituent in the state of North Carolina in the last several years.

In keeping with the trend of recent events, however, Tarte is also a member of the ALEC organization, a feather in his cap that he was not shy in advertising in his weekly newsletter. Tarte not only is a member, but an active participant taking part in speaking events and even a seat on the ALEC Education Council.

Conclusion

The goal of forced vaccination has been in existence for quite some time, going back to a number of elite think tanks decades ago and the halls of pharmaceutical companies. Major pharmaceutical companies, for many obvious (or should be obvious ) reasons would also like to mandate vaccination. Increased profits from the vaccine sales and the treatment of resulting disease, as well as the cover-up of vaccine risks by a population free of a control group are but a few of the reasons such corporations are supporting the vaccine mandates.

After all, as Bertrand Russell stated as far back as 1953,

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .

But, while the push to mandate vaccines for children and adults is by no means an ALEC-centric conspiracy, this recent push for such laws was indeed formulated in ALEC councils.

For this reason, it is highly ironic that the political left should be the half of the paradigm that takes up the charge for mandatory vaccination laws. After all, it is the left (at the lower levels) who seems to live by the motto “If ALEC supports it, we oppose it.” This time, all it took was some clever propaganda, trendy nudging, and social shaming and the left was marching right behind ALEC as militantly as if they were Republicans all along.

The entire vaccine debate can scarcely even be labeled a debate. It is an exercise in social shaming, shouting down opposing views, and religious devotion to television and anyone wearing a lab coat or claiming to be an expert.

With the culprit behind the recent mandatory vaccine/eliminate exemption push now revealed, it is time to begin working toward repealing these laws and making sure that no similar bill is ever politically viable.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Reject Big Pharma’s Vaccine Mandates in 2020

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/01/reject-big-pharmas-vaccine-mandates-in-2020/

Reject Big Pharma’s Vaccine Mandates in 2020

Reject Big Pharma’s Vaccine Mandates in 2020

Opinion | Since 2015, we’ve seen the slow and steady erosion of vaccine informed consent rights across the U.S., as the forced vaccination lobby led by the pharmaceutical industry, medical trade and government health agencies have put pressure on state legislatures to mandate every federally recommended vaccine for children and adults while simultaneously eliminating vaccine exemptions.

If the fight for GMO labeling has taught us anything, it’s that industry is willing (and able) to spend whatever it takes to strong arm government into eliminating individual rights and freedoms to protect and boost their own profits.

This tactic is even more evident in the vaccine industry, which has everything to gain and nothing to lose by making sure laws are passed to force people to buy and use vaccines they don’t want or need for themselves and their minor children.

Residents of California, Washington, Maine and New York all lost vaccine exemptions this year, as detailed in “Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019” and, earlier this month, the New Jersey legislature rammed through a bill that repealed the religious and medical vaccine exemptions.

The GMO fight five years ago did teach us another important lesson, though, and that is the value and importance of victories in smaller states, which are easier to win—largely due to the reduced cost of advertising and education. This is one of the reasons why making a donation to support Maine’s “Yes On 1” campaign is so important, regardless of where in the United States you live.

‘Yes on 1 Maine’ to Reject Big Pharma

As explained in the featured video by Mainers for Health and Parental Rights, the Maine legislature passed a law, LD798, in June 2019 that revoked religious and philosophical/personal belief vaccine exemptions and blocked access to education and certain types of employment in Maine for those without all state-mandated vaccines. As explained on RejectBigPharma.com:1

… LD798 (ch. 154) … a vaccine mandate, was pushed through our legislature by Big Pharma and will remove thousands of Maine children and adults from school and employment for missing just one dose of a required vaccine.

The bill passed despite overwhelming opposition from the citizens of Maine and is not the will of the people. Mandates coerce compliance with the rapidly increasing vaccine schedule (currently 72 vaccine doses by the age of 18) using the threat of expulsion from school or termination from employment.

With the passage of LD798, Maine became only the 5th state in the nation to remove religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination, eliminating parents and employees’ rights to decide what is injected into their own bodies and the bodies of their children.

If Mainers do not comply with the new law and choose to opt out of even one dose of a required vaccine, they face expulsion from all public, private, parochial and online schools (preschool through graduate school) as well as termination from employment.

Support Maine’s ‘Yes on 1’ Campaign

A people’s veto petition to overturn Maine’s new vaccine law garnered a total of 95,871 signatures—far more than the 63,067 signatures required to ensure a place on the Mar. 3, 2020, ballot approved by the Maine secretary of state.2

What this means is that Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates to a popular vote. To help them succeed and set the precedent for other states to follow, they need your donor support.

As mentioned, smaller states are easier to win because there are fewer people to educate on the issue at hand, which means less money is required for advertising. Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

The “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign needs to raise at least $1 million to stand a chance against the wealthy and powerful vaccine industry’s deep pockets. If the freedom fighters in Maine can raise more, even better. YOU can make a difference by making a donation to this campaign today!

Why Vote Yes on 1?

As stated by campaign manager Cara Sacks in the featured video:

There’s a famous political saying: ‘As Maine goes, so goes the nation.’ Our fight is the nation’s fight to put an end to government’s vaccine mandates. But we can’t do it without your help.

If our people’s veto succeeds in Maine, it will send a resounding message to Big Pharma, and to all levels of government, that our states, our freedoms and our children’s bodies are not for sale.

If you live in Maine, be sure to personally participate in this crucial vote Mar. 3, 2020. If you’re unclear about what LD798 means for you and your children, check out the “Yes on 1 Myths vs. Reality” page.3 As noted on RejectBigPharma.com, when you vote Yes on 1, you’re saying yes to:4

  • Rejecting overreach by Big Pharma and government
  • Restoring equal access to education for everyone in Maine (Remember, LD798 restricts access to all forms of education if you are not fully vaccinated, including private and online schooling, all the way through graduate school)
  • Defending parental rights
  • Protecting religious freedom
  • Preserving informed consent and medical freedom

New Jersey Fights Draconian Vaccine Mandate

In related news, New Jersey families mounted a stunning public defense of the religious and medical vaccine exemptions in that state as protests by several thousand New Jersey citizens were held Dec. 16 outside the capitol building in Trenton.

Parents held signs and chanted, asking legislators to vote “NO” on a highly unpopular bill—S2173—that proposed to not only remove the religious vaccine exemption for all children in day care and schools, but also to effectively eliminate the legal right for physicians to grant a medical exemption that does not conform with narrow federal ACIP vaccine contraindication guidelines or fails to be approved by state health officials.

Four days earlier, on Dec. 12, hundreds of parents traveled to the state capitol to attend a senate health committee hearing on S2173. According to Children’s Health Defense legal counsel, Mary Holland, who testified at the hearing:5

December 12, the New Jersey Senate Health Committee held a hearing on bill S2173 … The bill passed out of the 10-member committee with a vote of 6 to 4 in favor of sending the repeal of the religious exemptions to the floor …

If S2173 passes … it will take effect in six months and eliminate all non-medical exemptions. Guidelines for medical exemptions will be provided to state health authorities. Thus, the state will review the validity of medical exemptions …

S2173 contains no carve-outs for special needs students entitled to a free and appropriate public education under federal law. There are no carve-outs for private, religious schools. It will apply to daycare, primary school and higher education.

There is no upper-age limit for the repeal. Unlike New York or California laws, the New Jersey law would apply to higher education. Thus, under the terms of the law, a 60-year old taking a cooking class at a community college could be required to prove vaccination status before enrollment. This could include even online courses at any institution of higher education in New Jersey.

In my brief testimony, I called out the fact that three Senators who had promised to maintain the religious exemption were absent and had been replaced by the Chair with three legislators who voted in favor of the repeal of the religious exemption.

There were hundreds of people at the hearing, outside, in overflow rooms and in the hearing room … Those concerned for health freedom and vaccine safety should be gravely concerned about the breadth and potential impact of New Jersey’s S2173.

In a Dec. 12, 2019, Facebook post, John Gilmore with the New York Alliance for Vaccine Rights commented, in part:6

If there was any doubt, it can no longer be denied that the dominant group within the Democratic Party of the United States is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the drug industry.

Their dependence on pharmaceutical cash, combined with a growing and extremely ugly contempt for religion and religious people, led the New Jersey Senate Health Committee … to eliminate the longstanding right to a religious exemption from vaccine mandates to attend school.

In New Jersey today, physicians and lobbyist for the vaccine industry were allowed to testify, but ordinary New Jersey citizens, who cannot sign fat checks to Senate President Sweeney and Chairman Vitale, were not allowed to speak.

By December 16, when a large crowd began to form outside the capitol building in opposition to the blatant attempt by the New Jersey senate leadership to ram through legislation eliminating vaccine exemptions just like had been done in New York, Maine and California earlier this year, it was clear that there were cracks forming in what was supposed to be an easy “yes” vote on the floor of the Senate.

As the afternoon and evening wore on and the chants grew louder, the vote became less certain as several Democrat senators indicated they had serious concerns about the bill and would vote “no.”

At about 8:30 p.m., the senate adjourned without taking a vote. Reportedly, the legislation could be voted upon when the senate reconvenes in early January, and New Jersey citizens are urged to contact their state senators now and ask for a “no” vote in January, and to contact Gov. Paul Murphy and ask for a veto of any legislation eliminating vaccine exemptions.

Other New Jersey vaccine legislation that moved forward this year was A1576 that eliminates the right of any employee working in a health care facility to decline an annual flu shot for religious or conscientious beliefs. Also passed was A1991, which requires students attending college in New Jersey to get meningococcal B vaccine.

For more detailed information on the status of vaccine bills in New Jersey or other states and to get talking points that can help you speak with your legislators, become a user of the free NVIC Advocacy Portal and stay up to date with bills introduced in your state so you can take action to defend your legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination.

Medical Overreach Is Going Viral

Indeed, everywhere we look, we find signs of out-of-control Big Pharma influence. In addition to vaccine exemptions being eliminated, forcing parents to play Russian roulette with their children’s health, doctors are also working closely with departments of children and family services (DCFS) in states to remove newborns from the custody of their parents if the parents refuse the vitamin K shot.

In September 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against hospitals in Illinois, including Silver Cross, University of Chicago Medical Center and Christ Hospital; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the DCFS; and certain pediatricians.

The lawsuit was filed by Illinois families who had their babies taken from them after they refused the vitamin K injection, vaccines or antibiotic eye treatment.7

Recordings of a meeting of members of the Illinois Department of Health’s Perinatal Advisory Committee have since been released, revealing that doctors were plotting to take custody of newborns to administer nonmandatory treatments in violation of the parents’ rights.8

As reported by PJ Media,9 one of the pediatricians named in the suit, Dr. Jill Glick, is accused of “[conspiring] with DCFS officials … to implement a DCFS policy that all of them knew was illegal, and [making] sure that Illinois pediatricians and hospitals carried out this policy using coercive threats … designed to enforce compliance with their desires that no parent be allowed to refuse the prophylactic medical procedures at issue in this case.”

A Freedom of Information Act request revealed an email from Glick written in August 2017, which suggested parents should be forced to accept such procedures in order to send a clear message to parents who “do not see the medical community as the expert.”10

We Must Protect Informed Consent at All Cost

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher’s 2017 article, “From Nuremberg to California: Why Informed Consent Matters in the 21st Century,” spells out why we must fight against this kind of government and Big Pharma overreach.

… the informed consent principle … was defined as a human right at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg in 1947.11 Informed consent means you have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention and the freedom to make a voluntary decision about whether or not to accept those risks without being coerced or punished for the decision you make.

Informed consent applies not just to risks taken by participants in scientific experiments, but also to risks taken by patients under the care of physicians12 13 1415 …

There is no liberty more fundamentally a natural, inalienable right than the freedom to think independently and follow your conscience when choosing what you are willing to risk your life or your child’s life for …

Vaccination must remain a choice because it is a medical intervention performed on the body of a healthy person that carries a risk of injury or death.16 17 And while we are all born equal, with equal rights under the law, we are not born identical.

Each one of us is born with different genes and a unique microbiome influenced by epigenetics that affects how we respond to the environments we live in.18 19 We do not all respond the same way to pharmaceutical products like vaccines, so vaccine risks are not being borne equally by everyone in society.

Why should the lives of those vulnerable to vaccine complications be valued any less than those vulnerable to complications of infections? And why should people not be free to choose to stay healthy in ways that pose far fewer risks?

The act of vaccination involves the deliberate introduction of killed, live attenuated or genetically engineered microbes into the body of a healthy person, along with varying amounts of chemicals, metals, human and animal RNA and DNA and other ingredients20 that atypically manipulate the immune system to mount an inflammatory response that stimulates artificial immunity.

There is no guarantee that vaccination will not compromise biological integrity or cause the death of a healthy or vaccine vulnerable person either immediately or in the future. There is also no guarantee that vaccination will protect a person from getting an infection … and transmitting it to others.21

Government Licensed Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’

Those who claim vaccines are safe and effective for all are stating an opinion that is not backed up with well-established scientific facts. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but opinion should not be turned into laws that restrict or eliminate the human right to freedom of thought, religious belief and informed consent to medical risk-taking.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that acknowledged federally licensed and recommended vaccines can injure and kill children. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated Congress’ established protocol and declared FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe.”22

Reports published by physician committees at the Institute of Medicine between 1991 and 2013 also confirmed that:

  • Very little is known about how vaccines or microbes act at the cellular and molecular level in the human body23 24 25
  • An unknown number of individuals have certain genetic, biological and environmental susceptibilities making them more vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, and doctors cannot accurately predict who those people are26 27 28
  • Clinical trials of experimental vaccines are too small to detect serious reactions before they are licensed29 30
  • The U.S.-recommended child vaccine schedule from birth to age 6 has not been adequately studied to rule out an association with allergies, autoimmunity, learning and behavior disorders, seizures, autism and other brain and immune dysfunction31 32

All the while, Big Pharma, medical trade groups and government health agencies lobby for the elimination of vaccine exemptions33 and the removal of civil rights such as education, employment and health care for those who decline one or more federally-recommended or state-mandated vaccines.

You can be sure that the pharmaceutical industry and doctors administering vaccines would not wield this kind of power if people could actually sue them for vaccine injuries and deaths. As it stands, they have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by pushing for more vaccine mandates and the elimination of exemptions.


This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published on Dr. Mercola’s website at www.mercola.com.

Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

References:

1 RejectBigPharma.com.
2 RejectBigPharma.com, What is a people’s veto?
3 RejectBigPharma.com, Yes on 1 Myths vs. Reality.
4 See Footnote 1.
5 Children’s Health Defense December 10, 2019.
6 Facebook, New York Alliance for Vaccine Rights, December 12, 2019.
7 PJ Media October 2, 2019.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination.
12 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Informed Consent.
13 Health and Human Rights Journal 2013; 15(2).
14 HG.org. Understanding Informed Consent.
15 Medline Plus, Informed Consent—Adults.
16 CDC. Possible Side Effects of Vaccines. May 8, 2017.
17 HRSA. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Vaccine Injury Compensation Data. October 2017.
18 Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press (US) 2006, Genes, Behavior and the Social Environment: Moving Beyond the Nature/Nurture Debate.
19 Clin Epigenetics 2015; 7:112.
20 CDC. Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary: Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine. Jan. 6, 2017.
21 NVIC Newsletter March 27, 2017.
22 Age of Autism November 16, 2018.
23 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee. Afterword on Research Needs p. 206. Press 1991.
24 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee. Need for Research and Surveillance. 1994.
25 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Forum. Research Opportunities p. 44, 1997.
26 Institute of Medicine. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility p. 82, 2012.
27 Institute of Medicine Committee, Summary p. 5-6, 2013
28 Institute of Medicine Committee, Summary of Scientific Findings p.129-130, 2013.
29 Institute of Medicine Committee Priorities for the National Vaccine Plan. The Safety of Vaccines and Vaccination Practices (p. 53).
30 Ellenberg S. Clinical Trials of Childhood Vaccines. Public Meeting Feb. 9, 2012.
31 See Footnote 27.
32 See Footnote 28.
33 NVIC Newsletter June 28, 2016.

Only 1% of Vaccine Reactions Reported to VAERS

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/01/only-one-percent-of-vaccine-reactions-reported-to-vaers/

Only One Percent of Vaccine Reactions Reported to VAERS

Only One Percent of Vaccine Reactions Reported to VAERS

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created by Congress in 1986 as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
  • Although health care providers are required by federal law to report specific vaccine reactions to VAERS, less than one percent of adverse events following vaccination are reported.
  • Doctors, medical workers, adult patients and parents of minor children can report a vaccine reaction to VAERS.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created by Congress under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and became operational in 1990 in response to growing public concern about the safety of vaccines, particularly the DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) vaccine.1

VAERS is jointly operated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Since VAERS began collecting reports in 1990, as of Nov. 14, 2019 there have been 8,087 vaccine-related deaths reported and about 47 percent of those death reports were for children under the age of three.2 There have been 17,394 reports of permanent disability following vaccinations, with about 30 percent occurring in children under age 17, while about 40 percent are in adults between 17 and 65 years old.3

Significant Under-Reporting to VAERS

A 2011 report by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that fewer than one percent of all vaccine adverse events are reported to the government:4

Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.

There have been 8,087 vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS, but that number likely represents only one percent of the total number of deaths that have actually occurred and the real number may be 808,700 vaccine–related deaths. Similarly, 17,394 reports of permanent disabilities have been reported to VAERS, but that number likely is closer to 1,739,400 vaccine-related disabilities.

Although the 1986 Act legally requires doctors and other medical workers who administer vaccines in the U.S. to report vaccine reactions, Congress did not include legal penalties in the law for those who refuse to comply with the reporting requirement.5 Therefore, VAERS is really a “passive” reporting system because there is no mechanism to compel compliance and hold vaccine administrators accountable for failing to report serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination to the government.

In addition, many vaccine reaction reports that are submitted to VAERS are incomplete, inaccurate or open to misinterpretation, especially those that are submitted by vaccine manufacturers. A 2009 study published in JAMA on “Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine,” found that VAERS has data analysis limitations that include “underreporting, inconsistency in the quality and completeness of reported data, stimulated reporting due to extensive news coverage and reporting biases.” Researchers stated:

A further limitation of VAERS reports after qHPV [quadrivalent HPV vaccine] is that a large proportion (68%) come from the manufacturer and most of these reports (89%) do not include sufficient identifying information to allow medical review of the individual cases. For example, when additional clinical information was available for review, approximately one-half of the cases of GBS and transverse myelitis were not confirmed.6

Obstacles to Vaccine Reaction Reporting to VAERS

Several factors have been cited as potential barriers to accurate reporting of vaccine reactions to the government:

  • Doctors, nurses and other vaccine providers are not aware it is a legal requirement to report health problems that occur after vaccination to VAERS;
  • Vaccine providers either are unsure about what types of clinical symptoms need to be reported or dismiss serious health problems that follow vaccination as unrelated to the vaccine(s) recently given;
  • The VAERS “Table of Reportable Events” is specific to each vaccine and requires vaccine providers to take the time to become familiar with the vaccine product insert to report “events described in manufacturer’s package insert as contraindications to additional doses of vaccine;”7

Also, there may be confusion about how to report a possible reaction, or an objection to spending the perceived time and effort it takes to report an event to VAERS.8 Reporting requirements also vary with the type of vaccine reaction, as well as by vaccine, and adverse events that occur after receipt of newer vaccines are more commonly reported than those that occur with vaccines that have been used for many years. One study reported,“68 percent of cases of vaccine-associated polio are reported to VAERS, but only four percent of MMR-associated thrombocytopenia are reported.”9

A proposed solution to underreporting of vaccine reactions has been to include a “proactive, spontaneous, automated adverse event reporting imbedded within EHRs [Electronic Health Records] and other computerized medical records and vaccine tracking systems.10

Anyone Can File A VAERS Report

If a doctor or medical worker, who has administered a vaccine, either does not recognize a vaccine reaction or refuses to make a report to VAERS, an adult patient or  parent of a minor child who has developed a serious health problem after vaccination can make a report.

According to VAERS, the information needed to fill out the report includes:11

  • Patient information (age, date of birth, sex)
  • Vaccine information (brand name, dosage)
  • Date, time, and location administered
  • Date and time when adverse event(s) started
  • Symptoms and outcome of the adverse event(s)
  • Medical tests and laboratory results (if applicable)
  • Physician’s contact information (if applicable)

Following is more information about identifying, reporting and preventing vaccine reactions:

____________________

**Comment**

Similarly to the reporting of Lyme disease cases, vaccine reactions are highly underreported.  

Imagine the very real potential:

  • 808,700 vaccine–related deaths compared to 8,087
  • 1,739,400 vaccine-related disabilities compared to 17,394

This reminds me of when in 2013 the CDC admitted that Lyme cases were likely 10 times higher than listed and elevated yearly new Lyme cases from 30,000 to 300,000.  https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0819-lyme-disease.html

They derived this new number based on 3 projects, all of which are problematic:

  • the first project analyzes medical claims information for approximately 22 million insured people annually for six years
  • the second project is based on a survey of clinical laboratories 
  • third project analyzes self-reported Lyme disease cases from a survey of the general public

The CDC states that the new estimate supports studies published in the 1990s indicating that the true number of cases is between 3- and 12-fold higher than the number of reported cases.

I contend it’s even higher, but regardless, those being injured by vaccines face the same uphill battle of being recognized and counted.  This is a shame as low numbers will falsely lead people to believe vaccines do not come with significant health risk, just as low numbers regarding tick borne illness have led authorities to falsely believe it’s not severe and significant.


Who is Lying to You?

Who is Lying to You?

 

 

Sign Petition to Protect Parental Rights. AMA Wants to Remove Vaccine Decisions From Parents

https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/protect-children-by-preserving-parental-rights/  Sign Here

Protect Children By Preserving Parental Rights

OUR STAND

  • The American Medical Association (AMA) spent over $20.4 million in 2018. It is a massive lobbying group whose objective is to maximize doctors’ earnings, interests, and protections under law. It has a track record of putting its interests before patients’ interests.
  • In June 2019, the AMA adopted a policy to focus on pressing states to pass laws that remove the vaccine decision from parents of children as young as 12 for the purpose of overriding parental objections to vaccines.
  • The AMA’s focus undermines natural rights and federal law which requires parents to be informed of vaccine information including risks and benefits prior to the distribution of a vaccine.
  • The AMA’s focus undermines natural rights cemented into U.S. law by U.S. Supreme Court precedents affirming long-standing cultural norms of the primary role of parents in the custody, care, and nurture of their children.
  • The AMA is a professional association whose agenda is to maximize its member physicians’ interests by shaping and directing health care policy, public health policy, and industry profitability. The parent’s interest is to make the best decisions for the individual child. The vaccine decision must remain with the child’s parents.

It Is Unconstitutional and Anti-American to Remove a Parent’s Right to Direct Healthcare Decisions for Our Children

The undersigned citizens of the United States respectfully request that state senators, state representatives and assembly people, and governors of the great states commit to affirming and upholding our medical, parental, and patient rights to make the decisions that affect the health and well-being of ourselves and our children.

The American Medical Association (AMA) voted in June 2019 to make it a mission to remove “the barrier” of “refusnik parents” to all children receiving all childhood vaccinations. It seeks to allow minor children as young as 12 years of age to provide their own consent in contravention of parental authority. Existing federal law—42 U.S. Code § 300aa–26—and Supreme Court precedent—Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville—make parental rights paramount to all other interests. This same federal statute establishes a compensation program for vaccine injury and death, plus unprecedented liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and the health care professionals who administer vaccines, because there is sufficient risk and established harm caused by vaccinations to justify and necessitate such a program.

Mandatory childhood vaccinations are used for preventative purposes in healthy children, not for emergency medical necessity, so such laws removing parental rights do not pass the “compelling state interest” test required to lawfully restrict a fundamental freedom. Any law that limits basic human rights—such as parental rights and informed consent to medical intervention—must undergo rigorous scrutiny and be shown to be strictly necessary, more than legitimate or important, narrowly focused on the cause of the problem, and the least restrictive of all methods. In the case of vaccines, passing strict scrutiny would require a public health emergency during a widespread “epidemic” and address the specific disease outbreak in question. It’s an overreach, and not strictly necessary, to remove parental knowledge and consent to all mandatory childhood vaccinations. The AMA is a professional association whose objective is to protect the interests of its member physicians. In the event of harm caused by healthcare decisions made in breach of parental authority, neither the AMA nor implicated physicians will be liable. The child’s parents will still be financially responsible (not to mention grievously disconsolate).

Parents, as the ultimate stakeholders, are the most invested in, and must continue to direct the decisions that determine, the child’s health and well-being. Removing parents from health decisions will jeopardize the child’s health and threaten the parent-child relationship and familial integrity. It is well established in natural, divine, and religious laws, and upheld in long-standing historical and cultural norms of the Western world that parents play the primary role in the upbringing and nurturance of our children. The alternative is medical authoritarianism and abhorrent to Americans. Please represent us and stand for the encompassing and inherent freedoms that define who we are.

__________________

For more on the Parental Rights Amendment:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/11/17/parental-rights-amendment-introduced-in-u-s-house/ 

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/04/20/why-we-need-the-parental-rights-amendment/ It gives real life stories of children taken from their parents over medical decisions.

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/02/21/parental-rights-in-medical-settings/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/12/parental-rights-come-from-the-state-says-law-professor-james-dwyer/

Lyme/MSIDS patients; unfortunately, understand this phenomenon all too well.  Children infected with tick borne illness (TBI’s) are not believed and are told it’s all in their headshttps://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/06/30/child-with-lymemsidspans-told-by-doctors-she-made-it-all-up/ , they are being lazy, or they just want attention.  Parents are told they have Munchausen syndrome by proxy https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/11/sick-shaming-of-lymemsids-patients/ and are accused of child abuse   https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/08/24/dutch-lyme-patients-accused-of-child-abuse/ .

 

 

FDA Approves Merck’s New Live Ebola Vaccine Which It Says Can Shed and Cause Immunosuppression

https://www.greenmedinfo.health/blog/fda-approves-mercks-new-live-ebola-vaccine-which-it-says-can-shed-and-cause-immun?

FDA Approves Merck’s New Live Ebola Vaccine Which It Says Can Shed and Cause Immunosuppression “©

[12/24/19] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

Merck has received the FDA’s fast-tracked approval of a live, genetically modified Ebola vaccine which, according to its vaccine insert, can cause a novel new form of Ebola-type infection, resulting in immunosuppression and possible shedding of live virus to others.

On Dec. 20th, 2019, Merck announced it received FDA approval for an Ebola vaccine which contains the virus known as recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–Zaire Ebola virus (rVSV-ZEBOV), and will be marketed under the name ERVEBO.

The rVSV-ZEBOV is a live, replication-competent virus, produced with the same African green monkey derived Vero cell line Merck used to create the Rotateq vaccine targeting rotavirus infections. The Vero cell line has been previously identified to carry at least two surreptitious simian endogenous retroviruses whose significant risks to human health have not yet been formally evaluated.

VSV-ZEBOV is produced through genetic modification, combining the vesicular stomatitis virus (which on its own can cause flu-like illness in humans) in which the gene for native envelope glycoprotein (P03522) is replaced with that from the Ebola virus (P87666), Kikwit 1995 Zaire strain.

In its recent press release, Merck acknowledged that the vaccine may result in the shedding of RNAs from the live virus in the blood, saliva, urine, and fluid from the skin of the vaccinated, and could result in the theoretical transmission of the vaccine virus to others (based on previous RT-PCR testing). The vaccine insert also states:

“ Transmission of vaccine virus is a theoretical possibility. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in blood, saliva, or urine for up to 14 days after vaccination. The duration of shedding is not known; however, samples taken 28 days after vaccination tested negative. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in fluid from skin vesicles that appeared after vaccination.”

The clinical studies conducted on the vaccine included safety assessments, noting serious adverse effects which included life-threatening anaphylaxis. Another particularly concerning adverse effect of the ERVEBO vaccine was identified after white blood cell counts were assessed in 697 subjects:

“Decreases in lymphocytes were reported in up to 85% of subjects and decreases in neutrophils were reported in up to 43% of subjects. No associated infections were reported.”

Considering the fact that Ebola virus infection causes the death of lymphocytes1 and neutrophils,2the vaccine appears to induce the very same type of immunosuppressive effects that are associated with morbidity and mortality from the disease it is attempting to prevent.

Moreover, according to Merck, the vaccine may interfere with laboratory tests intended to identify Ebola infection:

Interference with Laboratory Tests

Following vaccination with ERVEBO, individuals may test positive for anti-Ebola glycoprotein (GP) antibody and/or Ebola GP nucleic acid or antigens.”

In summary, the vaccine may:

1) produce widespread RNA virus infection within the tissues of those vaccinated

2) may shed and infect others 

3) produce immunosuppressive effects consistent with Ebola infection

4) produce immune effects that may prevent laboratory tests from discerning wild-type Ebola infection from vaccine-strain Ebola infection


Additional references

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5897007/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170524101419.htm

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Reject Big Pharma’s Vaccine Mandates in 2020

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/12/31/maine-vaccination-laws

Reject Big Pharma’s Vaccine Mandates in 2020

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In June 2019, Maine passed a new law, LD798, which revokes religious and philosophical/personal belief vaccine exemptions and bars access to education and certain types of employment for people who decline one or more state-mandated vaccines for themselves or their minor children
  • A people’s veto petition to overturn LD798 garnered 95,871 signatures from registered voters, who can act on March 3, 2020, to overturn the new law on a special ballot approved by the Maine secretary of state
  • Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates to a popular vote
  • Everywhere we look, we find signs of out-of-control Big Pharma influence on state governments and in Congress. The growing power of medical trade groups is threatening health choices, too, as doctors put pressure on state departments of children and family services to remove newborns from parents if they refuse to consent to risky or nonessential medical procedures, such as the vitamin K shot
  • Take a stand for informed consent to medical risk-taking by supporting Maine’s “Yes on 1” initiative with a donation that will make it possible to notify Maine voters to show up and cast a vote March 3. If you’re a Maine resident, also be sure to mark your calendar to cast your vote March 3, 2020

Since 2015, we’ve seen the slow and steady erosion of vaccine informed consent rights across the U.S., as the forced vaccination lobby led by the pharmaceutical industry, medical trade and government health agencies have put pressure on state legislatures to mandate every federally recommended vaccine for children and adults while simultaneously eliminating vaccine exemptions.

If the fight for GMO labeling has taught us anything, it’s that industry is willing (and able) to spend whatever it takes to strong arm government into eliminating individual rights and freedoms to protect and boost their own profits.

This tactic is even more evident in the vaccine industry, which has everything to gain and nothing to lose by making sure laws are passed to force people to buy and use vaccines they don’t want or need for themselves and their minor children.

Residents of California, Washington, Maine and New York all lost vaccine exemptions this year, as detailed in “Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019” and, earlier this month, the New Jersey legislature rammed through a bill that repealed the religious and medical vaccine exemptions.

The GMO fight five years ago did teach us another important lesson, though, and that is the value and importance of victories in smaller states, which are easier to win — largely due to the reduced cost of advertising and education. This is one of the reasons why making a donation to support Maine’s “Yes On 1” campaign is so important, regardless of where in the United States you live.

‘Yes on 1 Maine’ to Reject Big Pharma

As explained in the featured video by Mainers for Health and Parental Rights, the Maine legislature passed a law, LD798, in June 2019 that revoked religious and philosophical/personal belief vaccine exemptions and blocked access to education and certain types of employment in Maine for those without all state-mandated vaccines. As explained on RejectBigPharma.com:1

“… LD798 (ch. 154) … a vaccine mandate, was pushed through our legislature by Big Pharma and will remove thousands of Maine children and adults from school and employment for missing just one dose of a required vaccine.

The bill passed despite overwhelming opposition from the citizens of Maine and is not the will of the people. Mandates coerce compliance with the rapidly increasing vaccine schedule (currently 72 vaccine doses by the age of 18) using the threat of expulsion from school or termination from employment.

With the passage of LD798, Maine became only the 5th state in the nation to remove religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination, eliminating parents and employees’ rights to decide what is injected into their own bodies and the bodies of their children.

If Mainers do not comply with the new law and choose to opt out of even one dose of a required vaccine, they face expulsion from all public, private, parochial and online schools (preschool through graduate school) as well as termination from employment.”

Support Maine’s ‘Yes on 1’ Campaign

A people’s veto petition to overturn Maine’s new vaccine law garnered a total of 95,871 signatures — far more than the 63,067 signatures required to ensure a place on the March 3, 2020, ballot approved by the Maine secretary of state.2

What this means is that Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates to a popular vote. To help them succeed and set the precedent for other states to follow, they need your donor support.

As mentioned, smaller states are easier to win because there are fewer people to educate on the issue at hand, which means less money is required for advertising. Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

The “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign needs to raise at least $1 million to stand a chance against the wealthy and powerful vaccine industry’s deep pockets. If the freedom fighters in Maine can raise more, even better. YOU can make a difference by making a donation to this campaign today!


Why Vote Yes on 1?

As stated by campaign manager Cara Sacks in the featured video:

“There’s a famous political saying: ‘As Maine goes, so goes the nation.’ Our fight is the nation’s fight to put an end to government’s vaccine mandates. But we can’t do it without your help.

If our people’s veto succeeds in Maine, it will send a resounding message to Big Pharma, and to all levels of government, that our states, our freedoms and our children’s bodies are not for sale.”

If you live in Maine, be sure to personally participate in this crucial vote March 3, 2020. If you’re unclear about what LD798 means for you and your children, check out the “Yes on 1 Myths vs. Reality” page.3 As noted on RejectBigPharma.com, when you vote Yes on 1, you’re saying yes to:4

  • Rejecting overreach by Big Pharma and government
  • Restoring equal access to education for everyone in Maine (Remember, LD798 restricts access to all forms of education if you are not fully vaccinated, including private and online schooling, all the way through graduate school)
  • Defending parental rights
  • Protecting religious freedom
  • Preserving informed consent and medical freedom

New Jersey Fights Draconian Vaccine Mandate

In related news, New Jersey families mounted a stunning public defense of the religious and medical vaccine exemptions in that state as protests by several thousand New Jersey citizens were held December 16 outside the capitol building in Trenton.

Parents held signs and chanted, asking legislators to vote “NO” on a highly unpopular bill — S2173 — that proposed to not only remove the religious vaccine exemption for all children in day care and schools, but also to effectively eliminate the legal right for physicians to grant a medical exemption that does not conform with narrow federal ACIP vaccine contraindication guidelines or fails to be approved by state health officials.

Four days earlier, on December 12, hundreds of parents traveled to the state capitol to attend a senate health committee hearing on S2173. According to Children’s Health Defense legal counsel, Mary Holland, who testified at the hearing:5

“December 12, the New Jersey Senate Health Committee held a hearing on bill S2173 … The bill passed out of the 10-member committee with a vote of 6 to 4 in favor of sending the repeal of the religious exemptions to the floor …

If S2173 passes … it will take effect in six months and eliminate all non-medical exemptions. Guidelines for medical exemptions will be provided to state health authorities. Thus, the state will review the validity of medical exemptions …

S2173 contains no carve-outs for special needs students entitled to a free and appropriate public education under federal law. There are no carve-outs for private, religious schools. It will apply to daycare, primary school and higher education.

There is no upper-age limit for the repeal. Unlike New York or California laws, the New Jersey law would apply to higher education. Thus, under the terms of the law, a 60-year old taking a cooking class at a community college could be required to prove vaccination status before enrollment. This could include even online courses at any institution of higher education in New Jersey.

In my brief testimony, I called out the fact that three Senators who had promised to maintain the religious exemption were absent and had been replaced by the Chair with three legislators who voted in favor of the repeal of the religious exemption.

There were hundreds of people at the hearing, outside, in overflow rooms and in the hearing room … Those concerned for health freedom and vaccine safety should be gravely concerned about the breadth and potential impact of New Jersey’s S2173.”

In a December 12, 2019, Facebook post, John Gilmore with the New York Alliance for Vaccine Rights commented, in part:6

“If there was any doubt, it can no longer be denied that the dominant group within the Democratic Party of the United States is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the drug industry.

Their dependence on pharmaceutical cash, combined with a growing and extremely ugly contempt for religion and religious people, led the New Jersey Senate Health Committee … to eliminate the longstanding right to a religious exemption from vaccine mandates to attend school.

In New Jersey today, physicians and lobbyist for the vaccine industry were allowed to testify, but ordinary New Jersey citizens, who cannot sign fat checks to Senate President Sweeney and Chairman Vitale, were not allowed to speak.”

By December 16, when a large crowd began to form outside the capitol building in opposition to the blatant attempt by the New Jersey senate leadership to ram through legislation eliminating vaccine exemptions just like had been done in New York, Maine and California earlier this year, it was clear that there were cracks forming in what was supposed to be an easy “yes” vote on the floor of the Senate.

As the afternoon and evening wore on and the chants grew louder, the vote became less certain as several Democrat senators indicated they had serious concerns about the bill and would vote “no.”

At about 8:30 p.m., the senate adjourned without taking a vote. Reportedly, the legislation could be voted upon when the senate reconvenes in early January, and New Jersey citizens are urged to contact their state senators now and ask for a “no” vote in January, and to contact Gov. Paul Murphy and ask for a veto of any legislation eliminating vaccine exemptions.

Other New Jersey vaccine legislation that moved forward this year was A1576 that eliminates the right of any employee working in a health care facility to decline an annual flu shot for religious or conscientious beliefs. Also passed was A1991, which requires students attending college in New Jersey to get meningococcal B vaccine.

For more detailed information on the status of vaccine bills in New Jersey or other states and to get talking points that can help you speak with your legislators, become a user of the free NVIC Advocacy Portal and stay up to date with bills introduced in your state so you can take action to defend your legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination.

Medical Overreach Is Going Viral

Indeed, everywhere we look, we find signs of out-of-control Big Pharma influence. In addition to vaccine exemptions being eliminated, forcing parents to play Russian roulette with their children’s health, doctors are also working closely with departments of children and family services (DCFS) in states to remove newborns from the custody of their parents if the parents refuse the vitamin K shot.

In September 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against hospitals in Illinois, including Silver Cross, University of Chicago Medical Center and Christ Hospital; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the DCFS; and certain pediatricians.

The lawsuit was filed by Illinois families who had their babies taken from them after they refused the vitamin K injection, vaccines or antibiotic eye treatment, none of which are required by law in Illinois.7

Recordings of a meeting of members of the Illinois Department of Health’s Perinatal Advisory Committee have since been released, revealing that doctors were plotting to take custody of newborns to administer nonmandatory treatments in violation of the parents’ rights.8

As reported by PJ Media,9 one of the pediatricians named in the suit, Dr. Jill Glick, is accused of “[conspiring] with DCFS officials … to implement a DCFS policy that all of them knew was illegal, and [making] sure that Illinois pediatricians and hospitals carried out this policy using coercive threats … designed to enforce compliance with their desires that no parent be allowed to refuse the prophylactic medical procedures at issue in this case.”

A Freedom of Information Act request revealed an email from Glick written in August 2017, which suggested parents should be forced to accept such procedures in order to send a clear message to parents who “do not see the medical community as the expert.”10

We Must Protect Informed Consent at All Cost

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher’s 2017 article, “From Nuremberg to California: Why Informed Consent Matters in the 21st Century,” spells out why we must fight against this kind of government and Big Pharma overreach.

“… the informed consent principle … was defined as a human right at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg in 1947.11 Informed consent means you have the right to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of a medical intervention and the freedom to make a voluntary decision about whether or not to accept those risks without being coerced or punished for the decision you make.

Informed consent applies not just to risks taken by participants in scientific experiments, but also to risks taken by patients under the care of physicians12,13,14,15

There is no liberty more fundamentally a natural, inalienable right than the freedom to think independently and follow your conscience when choosing what you are willing to risk your life or your child’s life for …

Vaccination must remain a choice because it is a medical intervention performed on the body of a healthy person that carries a risk of injury or death.16,17 And while we are all born equal, with equal rights under the law, we are not born identical.

Each one of us is born with different genes and a unique microbiome influenced by epigenetics that affects how we respond to the environments we live in.18,19 We do not all respond the same way to pharmaceutical products like vaccines, so vaccine risks are not being borne equally by everyone in society.

Why should the lives of those vulnerable to vaccine complications be valued any less than those vulnerable to complications of infections? And why should people not be free to choose to stay healthy in ways that pose far fewer risks?

The act of vaccination involves the deliberate introduction of killed, live attenuated or genetically engineered microbes into the body of a healthy person, along with varying amounts of chemicals, metals, human and animal RNA and DNA and other ingredients20that atypically manipulate the immune system to mount an inflammatory response that stimulates artificial immunity.

There is no guarantee that vaccination will not compromise biological integrity or cause the death of a healthy or vaccine vulnerable person either immediately or in the future. There is also no guarantee that vaccination will protect a person from getting an infection … and transmitting it to others.21

Government Licensed Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’

Those who claim vaccines are safe and effective for all are stating an opinion that is not backed up with well-established scientific facts. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but opinion should not be turned into laws that restrict or eliminate the human right to freedom of thought, religious belief and informed consent to medical risk-taking.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that acknowledged federally licensed and recommended vaccines can injure and kill children. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated Congress’ established protocol and declared FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe.”22

Reports published by physician committees at the Institute of Medicine between 1991 and 2013 also confirmed that:

  • Very little is known about how vaccines or microbes act at the cellular and molecular level in the human body23,24,25
  • An unknown number of individuals have certain genetic, biological and environmental susceptibilities making them more vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, and doctors cannot accurately predict who those people are26,27,28
  • Clinical trials of experimental vaccines are too small to detect serious reactions before they are licensed29,30
  • The U.S.-recommended child vaccine schedule from birth to age 6 has not been adequately studied to rule out an association with allergies, autoimmunity, learning and behavior disorders, seizures, autism and other brain and immune dysfunction31,32

All the while, Big Pharma, medical trade groups and government health agencies lobby for the elimination of vaccine exemptions33 and the removal of civil rights such as education, employment and health care for those who decline one or more federally-recommended or state-mandated vaccines.

You can be sure that the pharmaceutical industry and doctors administering vaccines would not wield this kind of power if people could actually sue them for vaccine injuries and deaths. As it stands, they have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by pushing for more vaccine mandates and the elimination of exemptions.

Take a Stand Against Big Pharma Today!

You can take a stand for informed consent right now, today, by making a donation to support Maine’s “Yes on 1” ballot initiative. If you’re a Maine resident, also be sure to mark your calendar to cast your vote March 3, 2020.

One of the Most Powerful Videos I’ve Ever Seen

The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.

There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.

Think Globally, Act Locally

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and will get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call-to-action items you need at your fingertips. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

JOIN THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

  • Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another. By knowing the specific policies where you live, you’ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices.
  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions — Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall — View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
  • Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.

Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One Who Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation and refusal of medical care are becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.

At least 15% of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day, or continuing to provide medical care for those families who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So, take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect, and who is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.