Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘immunizations and vaccinations’ Category

Professionals and lay-people have been going around and around about a possible link between getting vaccinations and the potential for developing autism. This has resulted in difficulty for parents trying to determine what is in the best interest of their children.


 My husband and I have found enough compelling evidence to not allow our children to be vaccinated at all, based upon our extensive research. For us the cons heavily outweigh the pros. If you are currently undecided,  than I hope the following information will help you to figure out how you wish to protect your children and their health.  If you are decidedly pro-vaccination, this may cause you to reconsider your position. Or at least reconsider the ridiculous schedule/program currently recommended for shots, which includes multiple doses being given combined or at the same time. Your children are depending upon you!

                Head of CDC Admits on CNN that Vaccines can Trigger Autism

 

Recently Julie Gerberding, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appeared on Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s show House Call and explained that vaccines can trigger autism in a vulnerable subset of children. This is the claim that many parents have been making since at least the 1980s, and they have been dismissed and even mocked for making it.

Related information can be found at the following location:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/04/22/head-of-cdc-admits-on-cnn-that-vaccines-can-trigger-autism.aspx
The article follows below:


The U.S. government has now gone on the record saying that childhood vaccines can contribute to the symptoms of autism. They have then backtracked and stated that there is no association.
So which is it?
Well, by the time your child starts school he or she will have received more than 36 injections, including four doses each of vaccines for Hemophilus influenzae type b infections, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis — all of them given during the first 12 months of life.

 

And by then it may be too late for the CDC to make up their mind about whether or not vaccines can be dangerous.

 
In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school, and in the early 1980s, the incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000 births. Today it is 1 in 150 births and still climbing.

 
Is there a connection between autism and vaccines? I’d say so. And a pretty obvious one at that. If you are interested in the science behind this connection, Dr. Russell Blaylock has written an excellent paper that provides a connection between excessive vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism that is definitely worth reading.

 
The Blame Game

 
It seems clear from watching the CNN video with Dr. Julie Gerberding, the CDC’s director, that they are looking to put the blame for rising autism rates on anything other than their overzealous vaccination schedule.

 
While they have admitted that vaccines can trigger autism, Dr. Gerberding is quick to say that it’s only in children with a “rare” mitochondrial disorder. Referring to the landmark Hannah Poling case, Dr. Gerberding claimed that Hannah’s case was a rare incident with little relevance to the other autism cases pending in the federal “vaccine court.”

 
Since then, however, Dr. Gerberding and other CDC officials were made aware of a Portuguese study reporting that 7.2 percent of children with autism had confirmed mitochondrial disorders. Some now estimate the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism to be 20 percent or more, and the rate among children with the regressive sub-type of autism is likely even higher.

 
If mitochondrial dysfunction can convert into autism in large numbers, then the connection between vaccines and autism could clearly be quite strong.

 
So much so that the CDC acknowledged they are aware of this situation and are “immediately taking measures to address the current national vaccine schedule.”

 
Yet, Dr. Gerberding made no mention of this on CNN.

 
She also did not mention that the current vaccination schedule has never been proven to be safe.
Health officials consider a vaccine to be safe if no bad reactions — like seizures, intestinal obstruction or anaphylaxis — occur acutely. The CDC has not done any studies to assess the long-term effects of its immunization schedule.

 
So no one knows whether injecting children with 14 vaccines in their first 24 months of life, plus the meningococcal vaccine, which is to be administered between the age of 2 and 6, is enough to overwhelm their systems and lead to neurological and immune system disorders. They don’t know, yet they are very adamant about keeping your children on this schedule — and they make anyone who dares to question their logic out to be a quack.

 
Yet here’s something to chew on. One vaccine injected into a 13-pound, 2-month-old infant is equivalent to 10 doses of the same in a 130-pound adult.

 
This is an assault on your child’s nervous system and immune system, neither of which is fully developed. It’s no wonder, then, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, that multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate your brain’s immune system and, via the mechanism of “bystander injury,” destroy brain cells.
What else wasn’t mentioned in the interview?

 
Oh yes, that members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — the one that promulgates a self-serving, one-size-fits-all vaccine policy — are known to have ties to vaccine makers. And their compulsory vaccination schedule, that’s required of nearly every U.S. child who is entering public school, has made many of these vaccine makers rich beyond their wildest imaginations.
 
 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

 Our parental rights are being threatened RIGHT NOW! If you click on the graphic above you will be able to see many examples of government intrusion and over-stepping of the line, certainly many more examples than I can list in a setting such as this. However, one such example where our rights are at risk I must present to you, as it is very dear to my heart. That is the current controversy that is raging regarding the freedom of parents to homeschool. Now, I do not live in California. The current ruling does not affect me directly at this time. But I am not foolish enough to believe that the potential to destroy or significantly harm all that the homeschool pioneers who have gone before us have accomplished is not a real possibility.

Here is information about what is taking place for homeschoolers in California. You can read the article at this location:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

Homeschoolers’ setback sends shock waves through state
Bob Egelko, Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, March 7, 2008

  (03-07) 04:00 PST LOS ANGELES —

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

“At first, there was a sense of, ‘No way,’ ” said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. “Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation.”

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California’s compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child’s grade level.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws.”

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,” the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling
The ruling was applauded by a director for the state’s largest teachers union.

“We’re happy,” said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. “We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting.”

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell issued a statement saying he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling.”

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. “With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect,” Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she’s ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

“I’m kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep,” she said. “I’m ready. I have  good arguments.”

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, “stinks.”

Began as child welfare case
The Long family legal battle didn’t start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child’s complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home.

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution “was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children’s right to a legal education.”

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools – a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students – whether in class or through independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide
Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

“California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs’ two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

“They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor,” she said. “If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers.”

Heimov said her organization’s chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”

Online resources
The ruling: To view the ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal, go to links.sfgate.com/ZCQR.

E-mail the writers at begelko@sfchronicle.com and jtucker@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

If you want to keep your parental rights for homeschooling, for if/when to vaccinate, for how to raise your children etc.,  than please go visit http://www.parentalrights.org and sign their petition. Now is the time to stand up for what is right. We cannot wait and see what will happen, because by then it will be too late.

Read Full Post »

The question about a link between vaccinations and autism has been around for a long time. The government’s denial that there is a connection has been repeated and demonstrative. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has made a ruling that now has forced a government concession on this matter.  Please read this eye-opening and for some of us opinion-affirming article below. The source for this article is located at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57629

Feds admit vaccine
‘aggravated’ autism
Critics: Ruling major concession
after years of government denials

——————————————————————————–
Posted: February 28, 2008
6:43 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
David Kirby

The federal government continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, but the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled in favor of a child alleged to have regressed into autism as a result of vaccinations.

Several of the vaccinations included the controversial mercury-based preservative thimerosal, points out the National Autism Association, which sees the ruling as confirmation of the claims of many parents.

“This case echoes the stories of thousands of children across the country,” said NAA President Wendy Fournier. “With almost 5,000 similar cases pending in vaccine court, we are confident that this is just the first of many that will confirm what we have believed for so long – vaccines can and do cause children to regress into autism.”

Fournier called on the Centers for Disease Control “to acknowledge that the current vaccine schedule is not safe for every child and as with the administration of any medicine, individual risks and susceptibilities must be considered for each patient.”
The government’s unprecedented concession – filed Nov. 9 and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identity – was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case, said David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and The Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy.”

The concession was made by U.S. Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the defendant in all vaccine court cases.

A CDC panel, meanwhile, voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend flu shots for all school-age children. The move would compel private insurers to cover the costs and require the CDC to make the vaccine available to anyone who can’t afford it.

The NAA criticized the CDC decision, noting thimerosal is still found in flu shots recommended for children and pregnant women.

Thimerosal in vaccines is suspected of causing brain damage and weakening the immune system, making some children susceptible later to infection from measles, mumps and rubella shots.

Kirby, writing for the Huffington Post, reported the government’s written concession said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was “aggravated” by her shots and ultimately resulted in a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.

“This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require,” Kirby writes. “But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.”

The government’s concession, he says, seems to raise more questions than it answers.

The Department of Health and Human Services said its Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, or DVIC, “has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

Kirby said that for most affected families, the fine distinction between claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism is a fine distinction that is not so important.

While it’s too early to tell, he said, “this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is ‘absolutely no link’ between vaccines and autism.”

It also puts the federal government’s vaccine court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy, he said.

“DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component,” he pointed out. “And, they insist, it’s simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder. Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.”

The bottom line, he said, is that the public will demand to know what is going on inside the U.S. federal health establishment.

“The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way – and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions,” Kirby writes. “Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.”

The key words contained in the concession, he says, are “aggravated” and “manifested.”

“Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all,” Kirby argues.

“When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don’t say ‘his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death,'” he continues. “No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.”

Whatever the government’s further explanation, says Kirby, “they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case: The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism. And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.”

Read Full Post »

I have posted several entries regarding vaccinations, their dangers, and governmental involvement. You can find them here: http://www.thefullquiverhomeschoolhouse.wordpress.com/category/immunizations-and-vaccinations/

Below you will find an article describing legal methods to avoid unwanted vaccinations. You do have a choice! There are avenues to protect yourself and your family.

How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

  1. Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with “assault with a deadly weapon” and have the full resources of our laws behind you.
  2. At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I
In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing them.
Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them.

The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire – a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2
All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment.
How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages.

Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law.

However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, “Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger.”

Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3
While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

  1. Go to the reference section of your local library – look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on religious or medical grounds or both.
  2. You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4
There are two basic reasons for exception – medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions.
We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.

In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall.

The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are “the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child” and “to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system.” Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.

It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

Article 5
The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide “immunization waivers.”
Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions, you become responsible if you react.

When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is “religious conscience” or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you.

If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 5: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding, the facts of the law.

Article 6
What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination?
The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the “go” (at his discretion).

Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots – so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, “No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical.”

Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.

Some Important Details
The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are many important little “tricks of the trade” to having your legal requests honored. These will now be discussed.
While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization, most public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are loathe to discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge, volunteer such information.

A top Philadelphia school official was on the radio with the unequivocal statement, “NO SHOTS, NO SCHOOL.”

This statement is of course completely counter to state law, with which presumably he is familiar. Such unwarranted dogmatism is common in the people you will encounter. Once the end of their legitimate authority has been reached, they will use their next most powerful weapon – INTIMIDATION.

They will threaten to keep your child out of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. These are all idle threats because they can do none of these thing, if you follow our simple instructions.

The basic rules have been given to you, but there are a few important details to be considered if the officials start on this course of unlawful intimidation.

  1. You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of your stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor, minister, or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized, it could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a possibility of legal action against you.
  2. If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give you a statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won’t, their refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your child. If they do (they rarely will) they take the risk of incriminating themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what is specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they are on tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, you are not their servant. If worst comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for refusal, he will also in a negative way tell you what the accepted exemptions are, and then you can go about meeting them, by one of the routes suggested in this handout.
  3. Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No legal parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete lack of concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this simply means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have come to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your children immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but only because you were too concerned with other matters.
  4. At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn legal consent. Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both the advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other words, if a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and effective to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and you have not been properly informed. Conversely, it could be argued that non-consent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations.
  5. What do I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?
  6. This would be an extremely rare circumstance. But should it happen, you are not left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns. Send notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes the shot (ask your doctor for the address), to the doctor who is to administer the shot, to your school principal, to the school board, and to your local health department.

    In these letters make it clear that since they have refused to give you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what may happen to your child if they force these shots upon him. You then state that you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will consent to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your child may develop from the required shots. Of course none will give you such a guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered potentially highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of parents after such letters have been sent.

    That’s about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your children. All that has been said in this last section (1 to 5) is also applicable to the military and international travel, if required.

    Potpourri of Ammunition
    “As long as each individual who opposes vaccines has sincere objections, states them in writing, and signs his name – it is considered legal and proper action and must therefore be honored.”

    “Since many medical controversies exist surrounding immunization, drugs, and various other medications, it mandates that each individual have the right to control his own decisions and freedom of choice; anything less would be contrary to the constitutional laws that protect the citizens’ rights. ”

    “When you deal with school officials and lawyers, you are playing with legal terminology – move the wrong words around and you get hung.” The terminology used in this booklet has worked before and should work again.

    “It is important to state your objections in such a way that it complies with your state’s exemption provisions. They must then accept your request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law.” That is why it is absolutely essential that you know your own state law word for word before submitting your objection.

    “According to CDC (the federal Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the risks involved before they consent to vaccines.” If they do not do so, it is prima facie evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician.

    This regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the patient has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If this is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory immunization?

    Should you ever have to go to court, or what is more likely, to appear before a “kangaroo” court of school and health department officials, here is some class A evidence you might find useful to mention.

    • No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it.
    • The U.S. military allows no-nonsense “immunizations waivers.”
    • There is NO FEDERAL LAW on immunizations. They don’t dare. Their lawyers know the consequences.
    • Your rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use force against your will.
    • Most state officials like a nice, stress-free job. When you send in your objections and refuse to fit their ordered world by not having your children immunized, you make waves.

      This rocks their quiet existence, and there are only two ways their life can become orderly again: either by forcing you to their will or acquiescing to yours. What you must do to obtain an early waiver is to make the latter the easiest path for them.

      At first, however, an attempt will usually be made to bend you to their will by some form of intimidation. Many uninformed parents give in to this tack, and so it is tried again and again.

      If you are adequately informed, as a reader of this publication should be, you will let the officials know in no uncertain terms that you understand your rights under the law and will not stand for any such shilly-shallying. Invariably, once they discover you are adamant and acquainted with the state law, your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.

An Acknowledgment
The greatest part of the material on the first four pages is taken from the work of Mrs. Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois. Our staff has rearranged and edited the information, but we wish the full credit for its existence to go to this courageous woman who has for twelve years worked arduously, without compensation, to help her fellow Americans obtain their legal rights.
The following is an example of the state of Ilinois law (where I live) relating to immunizations. Illinois, like most states has no philosophical objection, but does have a religious one.

Illinois Administrative Code Title 77: Public Health
Chapter I: Department of Public Health
Subchapter i: Maternal and Child Health
Part 665 Child Health Examination Code
Subpart E: Exceptions

Section 665.510 Objection of Parent or Legal Guardian

Parent or legal guardian of a student may object to health examinations, immunizations, vision, and hearing screening tests, and dental health examinations for their children on religious grounds. If a religious objection is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian detailing such objections must be presented to the local school authority.

General philosophical or moral reluctance to allow physical examinations, immunizations, vision and hearing screening, and dental examinations will not provide a sufficient basis for an exception to statutory requirements.

The parent or legal guardian must be informed by the local school authority of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures per IDPH rules. The Control of Communicable Diseases (77 Ill. Adm. Code 690) at the time such objection is presented.

Section 665.520 Medical Objections

a) Any medical objections to an immunization must be:

1) Made by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches indicating what the medical condition is.

2) Endorsed and signed by the physician on the certificate of child health examination and placed on file in the child’s permanent record.

b) Should the condition of the child later permit immunization, this requirement will then have to be met. Parents or legal guardians must be informed of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures when such obje

Read Full Post »

This is a very sad story that demonstrates the very real danger sometimes posed by vaccinations. I post it here because I think too many times we are willing to just accept the status quo, or do what is “expected” of us unflinchingly without question. But we must question. We have to question, because we are the only true advocates for our own children.

You can find this article here: http://drbenkim.com/articles-vaccine-infection.htm

 Death By Lethal Vaccine Injection

By Christine Colebeck

Today is my daughter’s sweet 16th birthday but we will not be celebrating. Instead I will light a candle and when I blow it out I will make a wish in my daughter’s memory. My wish is for all mothers worldwide, that you will educate yourselves and that you make informed choices so that you may prevent unnecessary tragedy and be spared from my pain.

Laura’s Story

After 41 weeks of pregnancy, on July 27th, 1986, a perfect and healthy little baby, Laura Marie, made her entrance into the world. We were welcomed home by family and friends anxiously waiting to meet the new family member. They showered her with so many beautiful, little tiny, pink dresses, we joked that she would never be able to wear them all in one lifetime.

Our lives changed completely and now revolved around stroller walks in the park, visiting friends, changing diapers, night feedings and shopping for more little pink dresses. We were parents now, we had a family and life was absolutely perfect.

I took Laura for several baby check-ups at the pediatrician. She was a kind and gentle older woman. At 3 months old, the pediatrician was very pleased with Laura’s development and weight gain and vaccinated her with DPT OPV. I didn’t even question her, I knew that all my friend’s babies had this same vaccine and “all good mothers” vaccinated their children to protect them. I left the pediatrician’s office and walked home.

Laura was very fussy, which was unusual. She was crying loudly all the way home in the stroller. When we got home, I realized she had urinated so heavily she wet everything in the stroller. Then her cry turned into screaming and she developed a fever, her leg was very swollen and red, and felt hot. I called the pediatrician who told me this was “normal” and to give her Tempra. I gave her baby Tempra and I felt better, the pediatrician had assured me this was normal.

Laura continued to scream and I could no longer console her. My every instinct told me this was not normal but I was young with my first child and trusted the doctor. I could not hold Laura in my arms because she screamed louder as any movement of her leg seemed to cause her terrible pain. I put her in the swing and she cried herself to sleep. I was so relieved, the Tempra was working and the doctor must have been right. I began to feel silly for all my worrying. A short time later, Laura woke up screaming and spent the evening screaming and sleeping on and off.

She had no appetite and nothing made her stop crying. Finally it was bedtime and she cried in her crib, until she fell asleep. She had never cried herself to sleep before and I felt very bad for letting her but if I held her, she screamed louder. My husband came home from work and I told him about everything that had happened that day. Laura was sleeping soundly in her crib and we were both relieved that she seemed to be feeling better and decided not to worry… I should have worried.

In the morning I awoke and was startled to realize my husband had slept in for work. I immediately knew something was wrong and the worry from the previous night came rushing back to me. I quickly ran to her crib, with a feeling of dread. She did not look right. I closed my eyes tight and opened them again, and considered the possibility that this was a dream, but when I opened my eyes she looked dead.

I went into shock and after that, much of this day remains a blur. I touched her and she was very warm. I screamed for my husband to call 911.

I watched as he performed CPR, my body was frozen and I couldn’t move. He tried to revive our child to no avail. He was shouting for me to open the door for the paramedics, I was temporarily jolted back to reality and I went and opened the door. I could now move but couldn’t speak. I just stood there numbly shaking my head, feeling completely helpless as dozens of paramedics, police and firemen rushed past me into our home. I didn’t cry, and I wanted to scream at them to leave her alone but I couldn’t speak. She was on the floor and they were shocking her tiny body, in the little bedroom with the yellow painted walls and clown wallpaper. I stood there praying in my head that they would just leave her alone, that they would get out of her bedroom and that I would wake up from this horrible dream.

Then I heard someone saying there was a faint pulse and I suddenly felt hopeful. She was rushed from the house in an ambulance. It was then that the homicide detectives led us into another room and the interrogation began.

They decided that my husband and I needed to be questioned in separate rooms. I immediately realized they suspected that we had done this to our child. We all know that perfect children do not suddenly die for no reason. I was silent, I had already decided in my own mind that this was somehow all my fault and although I wasn’t quite sure what I had done to kill her, I was convinced that I had somehow caused this to happen. Perhaps, I was being punished by god for a sin or perhaps it happened because I had let her cry herself to sleep that night. The fact remained that my child was dead and “good mothers” do not have dead children.

My husband began to protest loudly about the line of questioning and he demanded we be taken immediately to the hospital, to see our child. The detectives finally took us to the hospital and put us in the “bad news room.” The doctor came and insisted we sit down before he spoke to us. He began telling us that they had tried this and that and then finally he said the words that would echo in my ears for a lifetime:

“She is dead.”

The pediatrician whom I so respected and adored broke down and cried when I gave her the news on the phone. She went back and forth defending the vaccine that she was told was safe, and blaming it for killing my child and those who told her it was safe.

She then told me that she also had another patient, an infant boy, die after this same vaccination.

Then the detectives took us home for more questions, often repeating the same questions several times until they grew tired of asking them. The questions constantly centered around our involvement, then they searched the house and checked for signs of forced entry. My husband repeatedly told them that he thought the vaccine had killed our child and told them over and over about her unusual behavior since she was vaccinated.

Everyone we knew arrived at our house. I made coffee and tidied the house, like it was any other day and we were having “guests”. Shock is a strange and wonderful thing and of course you don’t know you are in it.

My parents finally insisted on taking me to their house for a few days, while my husband and his friends had the horrendous task of packing up the nursery because I couldn’t stand to look at it any longer. The room I had so lovingly made was now empty and a source of great pain.

Several days later, after the funeral and the tiny white coffin that was so small my husband carried it alone, I finally came out of shock and allowed myself to cry a river. I cried for all the things I would never do with my daughter. All the ballet classes I would never take her to, the wedding I would never attend, the grandchildren I would never know and all the dreams I would never realize with her. I cried for all that was and all that would never be. There was an emptiness inside of me that threatened to swallow me up whole, as I fell into the depths of grief during the darkest days of my life.

The detectives eventually became satisfied that we had not harmed our daughter in any way and the investigation into her death ended. We were then left without answers.

The doctors did not want to talk about her death being related in any way to the vaccine and, one after the other, refused to answer our many questions. I was repeatedly told that vaccines were for “the greater good.” I was even told that loss of life through immunization was “expected” in the war against disease but these losses were considered to be at “acceptable” levels. However, this did not feel very acceptable or good to me as a mother with empty arms that ached for my child. The coroner finally told us months later that the cause of death was determined to be “SIDS” (sudden infant death syndrome), meaning “no known cause,” and refused to release a copy of the autopsy report to us.

It took almost a year for us to obtain this report and to our great horror, we realized that the autopsy summery was copied directly from the vaccine product monograph under the heading “Contraindications” as follows:

“Sudden infant death syndrome has been reported following administration of vaccines containing Diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and pertussis vaccine. However, the significance of these reports is not clear. One common factor is the age where primary immunization was done between the age of 2 to 6 months, a period where most sudden infant death syndromes are found to occur with a peak incidence being at 2 to 4 months.”

There was no toxicology testing performed and the pediatrician never filed an adverse vaccine reaction report with health authorities. I later learned that most vaccine-induced deaths in this country are listed as SIDS and SIDS statistics are NOT included in vaccine adverse reaction data, even if a child dies only a few hours after receiving inoculation. This data is presented to physicians and the public to reassure them that vaccines are safe.

The government’s own literature advises that there has been little or no testing in the area of vaccine safety or efficacy. Essentially, our children are the test. According to their literature, immunization is “the most cost effective” way to prevent disease. Nowhere in their literature does it claim to be the safest. We are trading our children’s lives to save the government money. We are told that the benefits outweigh the risks but many of the diseases that we vaccinate for are not even life threatening; however, the vaccine itself has the potential to kill.

Vaccines kill at a much higher rate than we are led to believe. We play vaccine roulette with our children’s lives and we never know which child will fall victim next.

If the odds are 1 in 500 thousand for death, 1 in 100 thousand for permanent brain injury, 1 in 1700 for seizures and convulsions or 1 in 100 for adverse reaction, are you willing to take that chance? Are any odds acceptable enough to convince you to gamble with your child’s life?

I can assure you that death from vaccination is neither quick nor painless. I helplessly watched my daughter suffer an excruciatingly slow death as she screamed and arched her back in pain, while the vaccine did as it was intended to do and assaulted her immature immune system. The poisons used as preservatives seeped through her tiny body, overwhelming her vital organs one by one until they collapsed. It is an image that will haunt me forever and I hope no other parent ever has to witness it.

A death sentence considered too inhumane for this county’s most violent criminals was handed down to my beautiful, innocent, infant daughter, death by lethal injection.

Today, on my daughter’s birthday, I will grieve not only for the loss of my own child but for all the innocent children for which the benefits of vaccines do not outweigh the risks and are unnecessarily sentenced to death by lethal injection, under the guise of “the greater good.” The true war is not against disease; we have somehow become our own worst enemy by putting our faith in science instead of nature. Today, I call on all mothers across the world to join me in putting an end to this senseless slaughter of our most precious resource, our children.

————————————————————————————–

Please share Laura’s story with friends and family members who plan on having children in the coming years.

Read Full Post »

I felt the need to post some material that support my position on vaccinations, particularly in regard to the ethical and Spiritual ramifications of immunizations that are derived from aborted fetal cell lines. This material is free from the Children of God for Life organization. In fact you can even request free pamphlets from them if you so desire. Their web-site can be found at http://www.cogforlife.org .

  

PROVE IT!

Has anyone told you they didn’t believe we could possibly have vaccines produced right here in America from aborted fetal tissue?  Did anyone tell you it was a hoax?  Children of God for Life gives you the full truth and the resources you need to prove it!

The fact that the Chickenpox, Hepatitis-A and MMR vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines, MRC-5 and WI-38 has never been hidden from the public.  The problem is that when parents go to their family doctors for vaccinations, who asks to see the product insert?   Most parents want to know the risks and possible side effects.  Like their doctors, parents are mostly concerned with the health of their children.   And doctors, who have been administering the vaccines for years have never checked into the ingredients, although it has always been right at their fingertips.  And what would happen if they did?  They would read that the vaccine contains “MRC-5”, “WI-38” (or both) “human diploid cell lines”.

Click here for the Manufacturer’s package insert portion describing the fetal cell lines.

But that statement alone does not mean “aborted fetal tissue”.  Diploid cells are defined as “having twice the number of chromosomes normally occurring in a mature germ cell”.  Deceptive footwork on the part of the pharmaceutical companies; legal, without disclosing what would have surely led to a public outcry and a demand for immediate change.

Next, most doctors have at their disposal a book called a PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference).  The same information, listing the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines can be found there as well.

But what happens when the information still does not prove that MRC-5 or WI-38 are aborted fetal cell lines?  There are several references to document this as well a few of which are listed below.  But finding the resource material yourself can be time consuming and cumbersome.  Taken from the Coriell Cell Repository, a company that actually sells fetal (and other) tissue cell lines, is a complete scientific description of the cell lines and the information on the original abortions:

MRC-5  Aborted Fetal Cell Line        WI-38 Aborted Fetal Cell Line

In addition, the National Catholic Medical Association has a written resolution, to provide vaccines not derived from aborted fetal tissue where alternatives exist and supporting our effort to demand changes for those not offering any other source.  The Catholic Medical Association and the American Association of Pro-Life Pediatricians have put their stamp of approval on our Campaign.  They would certainly not risk their reputation on a frivolous effort that had no scientific evidence to back it!

Still not convinced?  Read one of the letters Merck has written in response to our request that they cease and desist!

In addition, we have provided information from some of these references for those who would have no way of accessing this information otherwise.  Here are some excerpts from medical journals which provided specifics about the cell cultures for the Rubella vaccine:

Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines ; Amer J Dis Child Vol 118 Aug 1969

Dr. K McCarthy: It seems to me that there are two things that we worry about in regards to WI-38 cell substrate. First of all, presence of extraneous viral agents; secondly, the possibility of there being human genetic material passed over into the vaccine. I wonder if there is any information about the reasons for aborting that particular embryo that gave rise to WI-38; and if it was from a family, whether we have any information about siblings from the family and whether they are normal?

Dr.S Plotkin, Philadelphia: I should like to answer Dr. McCarthy’s question. This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families; I believe this answers Dr. McCarthy’s question.

Attenuation Of RA 27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells; Amer J Dis Child vol 118 Aug 1969

Explant cultures were made of the dissected organs of a particular fetus aborted because of rubella, the 27th in our series of fetuses aborted during the 1964 epidemic. The third explant, which happened to be from kidney, was selected arbitrarily for further study.

Studies of Immunization With Living Rubella Virus ; Arch J Dis Child vol 110 Oct 1965

“This fetus was from a 25-year-old mother exposed to rubella 8 days after last menstrual period. 16 days later she developed rubella. The fetus was surgically aborted 17 days after maternal illness and dissected immediately. Explants from several organs were cultured and successful cell growth was achieved from lung, skin, and kidney. It was then grown on WI-38. This new vaccine was tested on orphans in Philadelphia”.

Further references:

Center for Disease Control:  http://www.cdc.gov
In the search engine, type the name of vaccine you wish to access.  Children of God for Life has already printed these documents, taken from the MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports), which are documented by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and are quite lengthy.  If you need specific copies, please contact us for help.

Text References:

*Hayflick, Mortality and Immortality at the Cellular Level: A review, University of California, San Francisco, August, 1997

* L. Hayflick and P.S. Moorhead, The Serial Cultivation of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research 25, 585-621, 1961

* L. Hayflick, The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Reserch, 37, 611-636, 1965

*New England Journal of Medicine; Rubella in Children, Pediatrics, 1965, 1976, 1980

*Jacobs, Nature 277:168 (1970), Characteristics of a human diploid cell designated MRC-5.

*Vaccines, Third Edition, W. B. Saunders Company, Stanley Plotkin, M.D., Table 17-5 Est. Morbidity Assoc. with Rubella Epid.1964-65;

*Nature Vol. 227 July 11 1970 Characteristics of a Human Diploid Cell

*Hayflick, Exp Cell Res 37:614-36, 1965

*American Journal Diseases of Children; Virus Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines, Vol. 118 Aug 1969

*American Journal of Disease of Childhood, Attenuation of RA27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells, Plotkin, Stanley, et. al., 118:178-185, 1969

*American Journal of Diseases of Children, vol. 118, August 1969, G. Sven, S. Plotkin and K. McCarthy, Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines,  

*American Journal Diseases of Children; Studies of Immunization With Living Rubella Virus, Vol. 110 Oct 1965

*Plotkin, S.A. Development of R/A/27/3 attenuated rubella virus grown in WI-38 cells, International Symposium on Rubella Vaccines, London, 1968; Symp. Series Immunobiology Standard., vol. 11, pp. 249-260 (Karger, Basel/New York 1969).

*Hoskins, J.M. and Plotkin, S.A. Behaviour of rubella virus in human diploid cell strains, Growth of Virus, Archiv f Virusforschung, Bd. 21, H. 3-4: 283-295 (Received for publication January 16, 1967).

*MMWR 39(RR-15),11/23/90,citing Cochi etal, Am J Epidem 129: 349-361,1989).

*Centers for Disease Control, Varicella:  Morbidity & Mortality Reports: (Vol. 45/No.RR-11)

Read Full Post »

Here is another article about the ethics of vaccinations. I think that this is important information to get out there, especially to the Christian community which I believe has largely been deceived in this realm. So here it is:

Vaccines and Abortion:

 What Will You Do?
 –1/30/03–

Suppose ten of America’s most popular vaccines were cultured on the bodies of Jews murdered by the Nazis. I bet you can predict what would happen. Scientists and physicians from around the world would begin a petition protesting the existence of these vaccines. The state of Israel would demand the cultures be flown to Tel Aviv for burial. As soon as possible the FDA would import and license alternatives. Meanwhile, the federal government would allocate millions of tax dollars to speed efforts by American companies to produce new cultures. If the vaccines were
 not immediately removed from the market, an organized boycott would transpire. In the midst of all this, suppose the media revealed the manufacturers of these vaccines actually collaborated with the Nazis to acquire the cultures. In fact, these same companies still
 have ties to a secret ring of Nazi-party doctors and have created additional cultures from other Jews killed as recently as 1985.

Would you boycott these vaccines? Would you write the pharmaceutical companies and demand they manufacture alternatives? Would you help spread the word by passing out petitions and literature? What would you do?

The scenario described above is true. The ten vaccines, however, are not derived from victims of the Nazi Holocaust, but the Abortion Holocaust. These vaccines — in different combinations — immunize against chickenpox, hepatitis A, polio, rabies and rubella. Specifically, the vaccines are cultured on — and thus contain — aborted fetal tissue from two babies known only as WI-38 and MRC-5.The WI-38 culture was developed in 1962 from a three-month-old unborn girl aborted in Sweden. The fetus was chosen solely for the purpose of creating a vaccine culture.
The parents of WI-38 were married and had the abortion because they felt they had too many children, which in Sweden probably means two.

The second vaccine victim is MRC-5, a fourteen-week-old preborn baby boy aborted in Great Britain in 1966 for “psychiatric” reasons.

In spite of what you may read elsewhere about these vaccines, neither WI-38 nor MRC-5 are “immortal” — which means one day the cultures will die and need to be replaced. Thus a third culture, known as PER.C6, is currently being tested for use with several new vaccines. PER.C6 is derived from an unborn eighteen-week-old baby aborted in the Netherlands in 1985. The PER.C6 abortion was completely voluntary, and in the words of the scientist who created the culture, performed “simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus.”

Development of the rubella vaccine actually involved not one, but twenty-eight abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The live rubella virus was not detected until the twenty-seventh abortion, which indicates the preceding twenty-six abortions were performed on perfectly healthy babies. Yet, in 1962, two separateU.S. research teams isolated the virus without performing a single abortion. In Japan, researchers obtained a live virus by simply swabbing the throat of an infected child. Likewise, alternative vaccines cultured on animal cells or chick embryo are widely available in other parts of the world.

But if no medical or scientific necessity can excuse these abortions, why were they performed? Three words: Fetal Tissue Research.

Almost a decade before Roe v. Wade, long before anyone had even heard of embryonic stem cells, pharmaceutical companies — supported by the National Institutes of Health — used these vaccines as a means of institutionalizing fetal tissue research.
Ever since, the popularity — and profitability — of these vaccines have been used to excuse additional forms of fetal tissue experimentation.

Unlike other, more remote, types of fetal tissue research, abortion-tainted
vaccines directly implicate us all in the culture of death.

 Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more insidious means of forcing people to unintentionally cooperate with abortion than by mandating the use of vaccines containing aborted fetal tissue. I say force . . . because in every state children must be vaccinated to attend school. Parents are thus often denied the right to refuse to use these vaccines — in spite of the serious ethical — and safety problems they pose. While substitutes are available for some of the vaccines, no alternatives exist for the chickenpox, rubella and hepatitis A immunizations.

As we gather here tomorrow to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we can only wonder what might have been if parents and doctors had joined together in the years prior to 1973 to protest the manufacture of these abortion-tainted vaccines. No doubt, most people did not know — and still do not know — that these vaccines even existed.

I began today by asking what you would do if you knew about these vaccines. Allow me then to leave you with this question: What will you do?
Jameson T. Taylor is the author of America’s Drug Deal: Vaccines, Abortion and Corruption. He is also a Ph.D. candidate in political philosophy at the Institute of Philosophic Studies of the University of Dallas.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »