Archive for the ‘vaccines’ Category

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

by Joseph Mercola, DO | Guest Writer
Published January 9, 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Exemptions Under Attack in 2019” and, earlier this month, the New Jersey legislature rammed through a bill that repealed the religious and medical vaccine exemptions.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.

Category:

Activism, vaccines

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

by TVR Staff
Published January 9, 2020
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.

Category:

Activism, vaccines

Who is Lying to You?

Who is Lying to You?

WHO IS LYING TO YOU? Highlights from “The HighWire”
Top World Health Officials’ Shocking Admissions About Vaccine Safety.

Of course Youtube would censor this extremely important video.  I found it here.  Doctor after doctor expose the problems surrounding vaccinations.

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/08/09/former-merck-scientist-explains-why-he-doesnt-vaccinate-his-children-due-to-lack-of-vaccine-safety-studies/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/09/08/acip-vote-yes-for-new-vaccine-despite-no-safety-studies-on-cumulative-effect-with-other-vaccines/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/01/22/bill-gates-former-doctor-says-billionaire-refused-to-vaccinate-his-children/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/06/13/blast-from-the-past-cdc-vaccine-authors-destroy-evidence-of-vaccine-harm/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/10/08/vaccine-safety-efficacy-studies-that-are-the-bases-for-marketing-authorizations-are-a-complete-methodological-mess/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/12/03/fda-admits-vaccines-contaminated-with-seriousviruses-including-cancer/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/15/vaccines-and-retroviruses-a-whistleblower-reveals-what-the-government-is-hiding/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/09/19/autism-aluminum-adjuvant-link-corroborated/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/06/15/canadian-data-more-autism-where-vaccine-coverage-is-highest/

Category:

Activism, vaccines

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 heads, https://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/ .

 

 

Category:

Activism, vaccines

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.”

Written By:  GMI Reporter

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

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

2 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.

Category:

vaccines