In 1982, an hour-long television documentary, "DPT:
Vaccine Roulette," was shown to the public. The documentary showed
children who had been permanently brain damaged following DPT vaccinations.
Their little bodies were twisted, contorted. Anguished parents were standing
nearby.
But, elsewhere on that same documentary, Dr. Robbins made
this remarkable statement:
"I think if you as a parent brought
your child to a doctor for a DPT shot and the doctor said to you initially, ‘Well,
I have to tell you that some children who get this
vaccine get brain damaged, there’s no question as to what your reaction would
be. As a responsible parent you would say, I wish not to take this
vaccine."—Ibid.
Sir Graham S. Wilson, M.D., knew a lot about the subject of
vaccination, since he formerly had been director of the British Public Health
Laboratory Services. He said this:
An Australian news magazine (The Age, April 12, 1975) interviewed Dr.
Ronald Penny, associate professor of medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in
Sydney. In the interview, Penny stated that a number of children were regularly
harmed or killed by vaccinations, and that they were most likely to be children
who had deficiencies in their immune systems.
According to Dr. Penny, measles, rubella, and polio
inoculations were the most dangerous because they involved "live"
viruses. He explained that weakened viruses are in the vaccines; but, placed in
a person with a weak immune system, they are as dangerous as a vigorous set of
germs placed in a healthy person.
According to Sir Graham Wilson, former director of Public
Health Laboratory Services of England, all it takes to get a disease in a
vaccine—is to get yourself run down enough before you receive the vaccination:
The result, according to Sir Wilson, is a "provocation
disease"—a disease you contracted from the vaccine injected to prevent
you from getting it! In a letter to the British Medical Journal, Rosemary
Fox, secretary of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, said this:
"Two years ago, we started to collect details from parents of serious
reactions, suffered by their children to immunizations of all kinds. In 65% of
the cases referred to by us, reactions followed ‘triple’
vaccinations (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis). The children in this group total
182 to date; all are severely brain damaged, some are also paralyzed, and 5 have
died during the past 18 months. Approximately 605 of reactions (major
convulsions, intense screaming, collapse, etc.) occurred within 24 hours of
vaccination, 80% within 3 days, and all within 12 days. During the period
1969-1974, when 64 deaths resulted from whooping cough, 56 cases of severe brain
damage followed vaccination.
The plan under consideration at the present time is for the
federal government to fund the cost of giving wide-spectrum vaccinations to
every child in the nation. Those injections will, of course, be given on a
mandatory basis.
At the 1982 Forum of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),
the adoption of the following resolution was urged by a concerned member:
After careful deliberation, the resolution was
rejected. Therefore, parents continue to not be told of the risks of
vaccination.
The fact stands out—loud and clear—that
immunizations are doing nothing to reduce disease. According to Volume 2 of
World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-1974, there has been a steady decline of
infectious diseases "in most ‘developing’ countries regardless of the
percentage of immunizations administered in these countries. It appears that
generally improved conditions of sanitation are largely responsible for
preventing ‘infectious’ diseases.
In Australia, Glen Dettman, Ph.D., and Archie Kalokerinos,
M.D., had seen all too well the terrible results accruing year after year from
vaccinations. So they teamed up and began a nationwide campaign to stop
vaccinations. They appeared on television and radio talk shows, wrote
articles, gave interviews, and wrote a book. They said this:
"Expanded immunization, using newly improved vaccines
. . will prevent the six main immunizable diseases from killing an estimated 5
million children a year and disabling 5 million more."—James Grant,
executive director of UNICEF, In Shift in the wind, 18, May 1984, p. 7.
The British Medical Journal mentioned that multiple
sclerosis can be caused by one or the other of seven different vaccines!
Yet mass vaccinations are also crucial to the
ongoing success, not of conquering disease, but getting people inoculated.
Without the coercion aspect, vaccinations would disappear.
"The principle of compulsory mass medication is
an established and accepted fact in American society today. Its cornerstone
rests upon the compulsory mass vaccination programs which are being enforced
with ever greater stringency throughout the country. The enforcement of these
programs is taking place in a number of areas in our society, but its primary
impact is on our children, who are required to take their quota of vaccines
before acceptance and admission into school, the attendance of which is
mandated."—Ibid.
"My name is Ann Andrex. I am from Mount
Rainier, Maryland, and I am not associated with any of the groups here. I am a
parent of a two-year-old and expecting another child soon. My two-year-old has
received all legally required vaccinations to attend nursery school, but I feel
it is wrong to force parents to have children vaccinated to attend school. There
are too many unknowns about the threats from the effects of the vaccination
compared to the threat of contracting and suffering through the various
diseases, especially in the case of pertussis, and it is also wrong to legally
mandate vaccinations when there are no legally mandated programs of keeping
track of the vaccination effects by private as well as public M.D.s
Citizens in a given state can unite their efforts to fight
compulsory vaccinations. In Wisconsin, they did just that. The people formed
Citizens for Free Choice in Immunization and worked until, in 1980, they
clarified the Wisconsin State statute that discusses exemptions from mandated
vaccination. They had included into it a statement that persons who have a
decided conviction against a vaccination procedure can choose not to receive it,
and can also keep their children from receiving it. These modified provisions
were signed into Wisconsin law on May 7, 1980 (1979 Wisconsin Assembly Bill
767), and now can be found in the Wisconsin State Statute (Section 140.05(16)).
"Even in those states [requiring mandatory
immunizations], you may be able to persuade your pediatrician to eliminate the
pertussis component from the DPT vaccine. This immunization is the subject of so
much controversy that many doctors are becoming nervous about
giving it, fearing malpractice suits. They should be nervous, because in a
Chicago case a child damaged by the pertussis inoculation received a $5.5
million settlement award."—Robert Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy
Child, p. 210.
In 1962 a compulsory immunization bill was before Congress
which, if enacted, would have required vaccination of every person in America.
But the compulsory immunization bill was defeated by the
efforts of such groups as the National Health Federation, the Christian
Scientists, the Natural Hygienists, and others. So the organizations, determined
to sell vaccines in large quantities, focused on getting one state after another
to mandate immunization.
At the present time, all states have some type of compulsory
immunization law requiring children to be immunized against certain childhood
diseases: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, and polio.
Failure to comply with the law can prevent your child from attending school and
expose you to possible criminal penalties.
In recent years, there has been a trend toward greater
strictness in the enforcement of childhood vaccination programs by schools.
Legislatures in all fifty states have passed laws requiring vaccinations for
admission to schools, although most states have provided exemptions.
For example, a tougher new vaccination law went into
effect
in Virginia in 1983, which required private schools and day care centers to also
comply, and mandated that records be checked for exact dates of immunizations.
Each school principal was told he would be fined $10,000 if he admitted even one
student without vaccination papers.
More and more colleges are requiring new
students to be fully vaccinated before entrance. In 1991, the federal government
was considering adding a vaccination requirement for anyone applying for welfare
or food stamps (New York Times, March 17, 1991).
But the battle is being fought the most
vigorously at the elementary school level. Physicians, schools, and local and
state health departments tell parents that state laws and school regulations
absolutely require that the children be vaccinated, in order to attend school.
In the process, these authorities convey the distinct impression that
vaccination is mandatory and there are no exceptions. Why the battle? Parents
recognize their children are young and lack the robust strength of a
20-year-old. They also may have heard something about the fact that live disease
viruses are in those vaccines. So they try to avoid the vaccinations. Yet their
concerns are met with threats of court hearings and the loss of their children.
But is it true that vaccinations are
mandatory "with no exceptions"? In reality, each state provides
waivers permitting parents to object to mandated vaccines for one or more of the
following reasons: medical, religious, personal, parental objection, etc.
"Legal requirements concerning
immunization vary from state to state. All fifty states have compulsory
vaccination laws, though the specific requirements differ. This means that
parents who decide not to give the vaccines to their children will need to
seek a legal exemption. All fifty states also have a medical exemption."—Randall
Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 20.
TYPES OF EXEMPTION
All fifty states have a medical exemption.
All states, except West Virginia and Mississippi have legal exemptions from
vaccination on the basis of the parents’ religious beliefs. Twenty-two
states have the option of personal or philosophical belief exemptions—more
on that below.
Children cannot be refused admission to
public schools if their parents have a legal exemption. (Private schools are
able to set their own requirements for admission. Day care centers,
preschools, nursery schools and private elementary schools can refuse
admission to any child for any reason they choose. Yet, although they do not
need to, most of them go along with the recommendations of their state health
department.)
"Refusal to admit a child on the
basis of ‘inadequate’ immunization could create a legal liability for a
private school in a state where religious or philosophical exemptions exist.
That is, parents could take a school to court."—Randall Neustaedter,
The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 21.
Where should parents begin, when confronted
with such a situation? The first thing to be done is to read the law.
Specifically, what is the wording of the compulsory vaccination law in your
state? (For information on how to get that data, see "Sources of
information," later in this chapter.)
Most states have medical and religious
exemptions. Some also have personal conviction (belief) exemptions.
1 - For the medical exemption, you must
provide medical reasons why you or your child should not be vaccinated. The
child can be exempted if the parents can obtain a written statement or
certificate of waiver from a physician licensed in that state, stating that
the vaccine would be harmful to the child’s health. But doctors generally
fear to cooperate, lest they get in trouble with their state licensing boards.
So such statements are not often issued.
In this letter, it is generally 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.
There are two medical reasons which, on
medical grounds, are the most valid: (1) "The fear of allergic reaction
in a sensitive child," and (2) "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 parent will be held
responsible for such consequences, it is their responsibility to protect the
child.
Some states require that the letter be
signed by an M.D. or D.O.; but, if courteously and properly written, some
allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor.
So although medical exemptions are valid,
when written to fit each state law, they usually must be renewed yearly. That
latter point is a major weakness to medical exemptions, even when they can be
obtained.
2 - The religious exemption is generally
better than a medical one. But often it is not satisfied by your merely
stating that you are religious or have personal religious beliefs. You must
show evidence that you have membership in a church which does not believe in
vaccinations. There are not many such churches around. (The only recognized
denomination which is legally opposed to vaccination is the Christian Science
Church. Many years ago, they took the matter to court and obtained a legal
ruling of exemption. Other denominations could have done the same, but they
did not do so.)
In some states, the parent or guardian need
only sign a notarized affidavit stating that immunizations conflict with the
parent’s (or child’s) religious beliefs, in order to qualify for the
religious exemption. While, in other states, an official letter from a church
authority is required before exemption. In still others, it is only necessary
to submit a notarized letter that the individual adheres to religious tenets
which hold vaccination to be against God’s laws.
"Recent legal precedents have
established that religious belief may be personal, and parents need not be
associated with a religious institution opposed to vaccination."—Randall
Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 20.
3 - A third exemption is exemption due to
personal conviction (or personal belief). You are personally convinced that
you or your loved one should not be vaccinated. This, obviously, is a much
better exemption, and one which is easier for the court to accept. If your
state has the personal belief exemption, simply write on a piece of paper that
immunizations are contrary to your belief.
By the early 1990s, twenty-two states had
liberal exemptions based on "conscience, parental objection, personal
beliefs, philosophical, or other objections." These states are Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. However,
it’s possible that, when you read this, changes might have been made and,
more or less, states have those exemptions.
According to Carol Horowitz, there is yet
another category: that of conscientious objector status. In a 1983 magazine
article she said, "It is possible for parents to file as conscientious
objectors with the state health department, although this choice is not
advertised" or widely known. She says that several people she knows who
are conscientious objectors state that it is their "God-given right to
refuse to immunize my child." Any lesser statement, she says, is legally
unacceptable. You cannot, for example, say that you have read 15 articles in
newspapers and 8 articles in medical journals, or that you have seen some
documentary on television. It must be a personal, solid conviction, not an
acquaintance with hearsay (Carol Horowitz, "Immunizations and Informed
Consent," Mothering, Winter 1983, p. 38).
THE PRESSURE TO
COMPLY
The general pattern is for county or state authorities to
place heavy pressure on the parents to comply with the vaccination code as soon
as possible. They are threatened with court action and the loss of their
children. The parents are thrown into a panic. But the authorities are in their
own state of panic. They must get the recalcitrant family to yield right away,
lest others follow their example. Across the nation, there are to be found
vaccine-damaged children and it is only by strong-arm, police-state tactics that
the states can maintain their "compulsory vaccination laws."
"Other parents may be anxious about the
effects of vaccines on their child, but they are [still] concerned that if
enough people avoid the shot then the diseases will begin to reappear. The
vaccines may have bad side effects, yet if I avoid them for my child then the
vaccine campaign will not work for the general population. But this is a
sacrificial philosophy. Risk the side effects in my child for the good of the
whole society. The stakes of this game may be exceedingly high if the vaccines
are capable of causing a covert encephalitis syndrome. If that is true, then
we are trading one disease for another. This sacrifice is hardly worth the
cost."—R. Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, pp. 87-88.
It is claimed that the parents are "neglecting
their children" by not vaccinating them. Yet there is a sizeable amount of
evidence of vaccine-caused damage—indicating they would be neglecting their
responsibility to permit their children to be inoculated.
Another argument is that communities must require
that all children be vaccinated "in order to protect the other
children." Well, the "other children" are the ones who have been
vaccinated; are they not already "immunized"—fully protected—against
those particular diseases? If the vaccines offered true immunity, only the
unvaccinated would become ill.
"If vaccination does what its advocates claim
for it, the person who is vaccinated ought to be safe no matter whether
anybody else is vaccinated or not."—Clarence Darrow, quoted in W.
James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1987, p. 151.
"The State Health Commissioner presented
overwhelming evidence that a voluntary immunization program would not be
successful or worthwhile to maintain, and therefore he could not support our
position (to relax the mandatory restriction in the state vaccination law).
When I read that letter I couldn’t help thinking, ‘What an admission! So
the program can’t stand on its own ‘merits’; it has to be forced.’
"—W. James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1987, p. 152.
One angry medical professional wrote this:
"The so-called compulsory vaccination laws
are a complete travesty of the American Constitution and of God’s law of
free will. Surprisingly, the Land of the Free is one of the few civilized
countries that inflicts this dictatorial rule on its people. Countries like
England, Ireland, West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and
Spain did away with it long ago.
"I use the prefix ‘so-called’ in front of
these laws because, while they are entitled ‘compulsory,’ they all have
exclusions of which you can take advantage if you so desire. These exclusions
were placed there not for your benefit but, like so much small-print in
contracts, to protect the establishment. If a law were truly mandatory and
without exclusions, the framers of that law and the executors thereof could be
legally held responsible for all adverse consequences that might stem from its
implementation.
"Since it is a well-known fact that all
vaccines are potentially dangerous, no doctor, drug firm, or health official
will ever accept this responsibility. Therefore, all laws have waivers or
exclusions, and should your child be injured or killed by a vaccine, the
officials will look at you with that bland smile they wear so well, and say, ‘Well,
you should have exempted him if you thought there would be any trouble.’ Of
course, they never tell you about these waivers ahead of time, for this does not
fit in with their emphatic ‘No Shots, No School’ dogma.
"Nowhere, and at no time, in our great
country has the government the right to give you or yours a ‘shot’ against
your own will. If someone should attempt to do so, you have a prima facie
(immediately obvious) case of ‘attempted assault with a deadly weapon,’
and I would let them know this if they try.
"Those in the establishment who would force
their opinions and views down our throats (or rather, stick them into our
arms) have two major weapons to use against you: your ignorance of your rights
and their use of intimidation. Once you become informed on this matter you
will be able to withstand this intimidation through the realization that these
‘servants of society’ are but ‘paper tigers’ who stand on very shaky
legal ground.
"With the increasing proliferation of
vaccines and strong efforts toward compulsory immunization on the one hand,
and the possibility of a generation of immune-deficient, weakened Americans on
the other, it behooves everyone in charge of children to investigate
thoroughly the claims and counterclaims made concerning the immunization
procedures.
"Since God placed the welfare of the children
in the hands of the parents or guardians, it is only they who should have the
right to make the final decision, since it is they who must assume full
responsibility for the consequences."—Gerald E. Poesnecker, D.C.,
"No Shots, No School?" For You Naturally, January 1983, pp. 1-3.
Because of this obsession to force all children to
be vaccinated, even in "free states" (the nine states listed earlier
which have more liberal exemptions), attempts will be made to override or ignore
the state statutes permitting those more enlightened exemptions. In Arizona, for
example, parents were told "no shots, no school," and efforts were
made to intimidate them into having their children vaccinated. Yet the exemption
procedures were there—for those determined enough to use them.
"By definition, the enforcement of vaccine programs is
a police action by the state. Police powers are necessary in certain areas of
modern society, but are they appropriate with the vaccine programs?"—H.E.
Buttram, M.D., and J.C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization Trio, 1987, p. 79.
But the pressure generally succeeds, as one public official
said:
"A spokeswoman for the health department said . .
one-half of one percent of the children eligible for vaccinations are granted
exemptions on medical or religious grounds each year."—Virginia State
county health department official, quoted in Immunization: The Reality Behind
the Myth, 1987, p. 143.
A special method used with remarkable frequency in scattered
locations to whip up business, frighten the public, fight anti-vaccination
groups, and get more vaccinations is "the epidemic." When the public
becomes apathetic or suspicious of vaccines, announcements are sent out that an
epidemic is in progress.
In Placitas, New Mexico, not enough people were being
vaccinated, so the local newspaper was told that a dangerous whooping cough (pertussis)
epidemic was in progress. Headlines blared out the frightening message. But only
three cases of whooping cough were discovered in the entire area—and all of
them in children who had been vaccinated for whooping cough.
When one way does not work, it is time to try another. When
television programs in the mid-1980s focused, for a change, on the dangers of
pertussis vaccinations and said that it was they which were responsible for
cases of whooping cough, the Maryland Health Department countered with the
argument that the epidemic of pertussis was caused by the television shows (R.S.
Mendelsohn, Risks of Immunizations, 1987, p. 34).
WHAT IF YOU DO NOT WANT
VACCINATION?
"Many of the vaccines have significant side effects.
These can be separated into two groups: (a) immediate reactions, and (b)
delayed reactions and permanent disabilities. Immediate reactions include
fevers, allergic reactions and convulsions. With some vaccines, these can be
quite severe. Delayed and permanent reactions include epilepsy, mental
retardation, learning disabilities, and paralysis."—R. Neustaedter,
O.M.D., The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 8.
When faced with required vaccination for your child, there
are several alternatives. Here are three primary ones:
1 - You can go ahead and have your child vaccinated.
Thousands of others have done this; you can also. Vaccinations are somewhat
like Russian roulette: The parents never know if it will be their child which
will be stricken down by the germs in the vaccine. Perhaps nothing will
happen.
2 - You can move out of the state to one with more liberal
exemption laws. This is a possibility rarely mentioned in books of this
nature. Everyone is very concerned about winning the war against vaccination
laws. But there is also the possibility that your own family might lose the
war—and either your child will be forced to have the vaccination any way or
it might be taken from you and placed in a foster home. Prayer is needed, not
only mere determination.
If you do decide to flee, you might do well to pack and then leave in the
night. An alternative is to have the mother leave with the children and go to
another state. Most laws of this nature are not enforced on the same day that
notification of the violation is served. Two or three days are generally given
for compliance.
Keep in mind that, if one parent—or both parents—leaves
with the children, the local authorities will try to find out where they are
and then contact that state to go after them. Therefore, it would be best to
have learned in advance which states are the safest to move to. Those will be
the ones with the most relaxed regulations on the vaccination. In this way,
the family can do some advance planning in case of trouble, which is always
better than last-minute decisions. (See "Sources of Information" for
a list of some states with more liberal vaccination exemptions. But, remember,
the list might have changed by the time you have to make a decision, so get
current information.)
In one instance, the mother refused to let the children be
taken from their home school and placed in public school. But the father was
wavering, unwilling to face the battle. So she left with them during the day
while he was at work, merely telling him that she had gone with the children.
When the judge learned of it, he ordered the man jailed until the children
were returned to that state and placed in the public school. Then, by someone’s
wise decision, the media was given the story. They spread it everywhere. In
this instance, it produced such a public outcry, that the judge released the
man. He then wound up his affairs, left the state, and rejoined the mother and
children—who were in a state with liberal home school provisions.
3 - You can try to get a waiver, on the basis of an
exemption stated in the state vaccination law. This will be easier to do if
you are in one of the 22 states (listed above) with more liberal exemption
laws.
If you decide to go this route, quickly obtain more
information. You need to know your state law, and you would do well to contact
one or more of the following sources.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
In addition to those listed just below, an abundant supply of additional
sources will be given later in this book.
1 - For further information on vaccine regulations in your
state, you can call one or more of the following: your State or County
Health Department; your State Board of Education; or your local school
district Superintendent of Schools office. Request a copy of your state’s
Immunization Laws. It will contain, in print, the requirements and
exemptions.
2 - Still another source is the reference section of
your local public library. Look in the State Statute Revised Law Book, under
"Public Health Law" or "Communicable Disease" sections.
You should there find the list of immunization requirements, followed by the
exemptions. Usually one or two provisions will be listed—either on religious
or medical grounds.
3 - You may call or write your state legislature
representative and ask for a copy of the immunization law in your state.
Making this available is part of his job, and he will usually send it
promptly.
4 - If you wish to know about vaccine regulations in another
state, you can obtain this information by contacting its State
Department of Health or State Department of Education. (1) If you
do not already know it, from a map learn the capital city of that state. (2)
Call the operator for the area code of that city. (3) During office hours in
that state, dial 1-area code-555-1212 and ask for the phone number of the
State Department of Health or the State Department of Education. (4) Dial the
number and ask the entering switchboard to be transferred to the department
which can give you the state vaccination and immunization requirements. (5)
When you are transferred to that office, ask for a written copy of the state
compulsory immunization law and its exemptions. Give a name and address for it
to be sent to. An alternate source of information would be one or more of the
next three listings (items 5, 6, and 7).
5 - A valuable source of information about legalities concerning
vaccinations is the American Natural Hygiene Society, Inc., 12816 Race
Track Road, Tampa, Florida 33625. This society has available abstracts of
state laws from most of the fifty states concerning immunization law
exemptions. They try to keep the information up to date.
6 - Another source is Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT):
geocities.com and sprynet.com. It was started by concerned lay people and
professionals. They promote information about vaccines, assist parents in
their legal battles to avoid immunization or obtain compensation from vaccine
injuries or death, and urge legislation for safer vaccinations. Members
receive an ongoing newsletter. This organization was prominent in the battle
to get the NCVIA enacted by Congress (discussed later in this chapter). (Also
see the next paragraph.)
7 - If your doctor or local authorities are unrelenting in
their efforts to vaccinate your child against your will, you are invited to
contact the National Vaccine Information Center (NV1C), 512 W. Maple Avenue,
Apt. 206, Vienna, Virginia 22180 (703-938-DPT3; FAX 938-0342).
8 - For information on financial compensation, due to death
or injury to a child from a mandated vaccine, see "The Compensation
System and How it Works," published by The National Vaccine Information
Center.
9 - Another source is The Dangers of Compulsory
Immunizations: How to Avoid Them, by Thomas Finn, an attorney residing in
Florida. His book is available from Family Fitness Press, Box 1658, New Port
Richey, Florida 33552.
10 - A helpful source is the booklet, How to Avoid Unwanted
Immunizations of All Kinds, published by Humanitarian Publishing Company,
Rural Route 3, Clymer Road, Quakertown, Pennsylvania 18951.
11 - For additional information on immunizations, and how
to obtain attorneys in your area, etc., contact National Health Federation,
P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, California 91016 (818-357-2181).
12 - If you are being asked to have your child given the standard DPT
(diphtheria-pertussis-typhoid) vaccination, you will find a wealth of
additional information on the dangers of pertussis vaccines in the book, A
Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher.
13 - Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety, 8216 192nd
Street, Ct E, Spanaway, WA.
PRINCIPLES TO KEEP IN MIND
Many facts and principles are given in this chapter. Here
are several more:
In all your contacts with authorities (school, public
health, legal, etc.) remain calm, courteous, and humbly respectful toward
their position. You are only asking of them that which duty binds them to give
you. Nothing is gained by unnecessarily antagonizing them. If they are
overstepping the law, then you must diplomatically bring the true facts to
their attention. Do this without belittling them. What you want is a waiver;
so help them help you get it, with as little embarrassment on their part as
possible.
In theory, the State must provide you with the possibility
of exemption waivers, in order to protect itself from responsibility for what
might happen if your child is injured as a result of a mandatory vaccination.
If a State allows no exceptions, then it must take full responsibility for
forcing the citizens to do a certain action which might result in injury. If
waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is placed back on the
parent: Why did he not sign one?
Thus, all "compulsory" vaccination laws are, in
fact, voluntary. The problem is that the officials do not want you to know
that.
While all immunization laws have exceptions which you can
use, it is important that you know the wording of the law—since it differs
from state to state.
Many health officials wish to exert as much control as possible while
assuming as little responsibility as possible. Therefore, if you place them in
a position in which they must either give you the waiver or, themselves,
assume more responsibility, you will usually get your waiver.
When working with school officials and attorneys, it is
important that you use the right legal terminology. The correct terminology
(some of it is given in this chapter) has worked before and should again. Many
of these principles are stated in this book; but, if in doubt, contact item 5,
6, or 7 in the section, "Sources of Information," just above.
(Important: Also read the next section, "When the School Requires
Immunization.")
It is important that you state your written objections, so
they comply with your state’s exemption provisions. According to Grace
Girdwain (a researcher into the subject), "they must then accept your
request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law." Therefore it
is essential that you know your particular state law, word for word, before
you submit your written objection.
Most state and county officials like an easy-going,
unstressful job. When you send in your written statement of objections, you
disturb them and make their life less pleasant for a time. There are only two
ways to solve the problem: either coerce you into submission or give you what
you want. In order to successfully obtain an early waiver, you want to make
the giving of that waiver the easiest path for them.
Because it so frequently succeeds with parents, they will
first try to intimidate you. In response, you politely, calmly, but with
certainty tell them that you understand your rights under the law and will not
accept evasions of those rights. Once they discover that you are adamant and
acquainted with the state law, it is likely that your waiver will be rapidly
forthcoming.
But success cannot easily be guaranteed: There seems to be a hidden power
behind the throne. The county is answerable to the state. The state receives
federal funds. Major industries with big money contribute heavily to federal
and state election campaigns. Then people like you come along and threaten the
high volume of vaccine sales. It is recognized that if you succeed in avoiding
a vaccination, others may try also.
WHEN THE SCHOOL
REQUIRES IMMUNIZATION
What can you do when your local school requires
immunization? Here are several things to keep in mind.
You can do one of two things: Let your child be immunized
or do not let him be immunized. That will be your choice. Make it thoughtfully
and carefully. It will be totally your decision.
Because the second of these decisions is the most
complicated, we will consider that one here:
Although waivers and exemptions are written into all
immunization laws, most public health officials and physicians prefer not to
discuss their existence—even when questioned. So, to start with, they do not
want you to know that such a waiver exists.
If you hesitate or refuse vaccination, you will then face
strong intimidation. They are likely to threaten to keep your child out of
school, take him from you, or send you to jail. But, according to a research
study by Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois, the officials cannot legally do
any of those things if you will take the following five steps:
"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, not you
theirs.
"If worse comes to worst and you have a very
knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the
lawful reasons for his refusal, he will also be required to tell you what
the accepted exemptions are. Then you can go about meeting them, using the
information available here and elsewhere.
"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 nonconsent is not legal if you
are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations. Toward
this end, the information in Parts I and II of this book should be sufficient
to make your consent or nonconsent fully legal.
"5. What I do if everyone refuses to give me a
waiver?
"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),
the doctor who is to administer the shot, your school principal, the school
board, and 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."—Grace Girdwain, "How
to Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations of All Kinds," reprinted in
Harold E. Buttram, M.D., and John C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization
Trio, 1991, pp. 108-109.
Keep in mind that many states only require mandatory
vaccination of children in public schools—not private or parochial schools.
Carefully read your state’s vaccination law. The principle of a private
school may tell you that your child must be vaccinated, when, in fact, the
state does not require it of children in private schools.
Some individuals are able to move to a different state and may wish to
learn which states are the least strict in their vaccination requirements.
(See the section, "Sources of Information," for where to
write to obtain those facts.)
IF YOU ARE TAKEN TO COURT
What if you are taken to court? You may be brought before
the judge—or, what is also likely, you may be asked to appear before a
"kangaroo" court of school and health department officials. (This
other "court" will be convened to see how determined you are, how
much you know, and how likely they can browbeat you into submission.)
A variety of information relating to this probability is
given elsewhere in this chapter. Here is more. Among other things, during the
hearing, explain in a humble but firm matter the following:
1 - No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the
laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it. Therefore, if a
person refuses a given vaccination, the responsibility would totally rest on
the public health department requiring it.
2 - The U.S. military allows no-nonsense "immunization
waivers." So other U.S. citizens should be able to receive them also.
3 - There is no federal law on immunizations. They
do not dare to enact one. Their attorneys know what the consequences would be.
4 - My rights have been infringed upon by officials
attempting to use force against my will.
In addition, you may wish to bring in some of the data
contained in the next several sections, immediately below.
A helpful tip: Write brief phrases of points you might wish to make
on one or more 3 x 5-inch cards. Hold them unobtrusively in your hand, and
refer to them when needed. Beforehand, practice speaking the points, referring
from time to time to the notes.
A FEDERAL LAW
YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT
In 1986, Congress enacted a special law. Entitled, The
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) (NCVIA),
it was passed to officially recognize the reality of vaccine-caused injuries
and deaths.
"Shortly after, the television documentary ‘DPT:
Vaccine Roulette’ was first shown in Washington, D.C., in April, 1982,
a group of parents in the area banded together and formed the national
organization known as Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT). This
nonprofit, educational, and charitable foundation operates the National
Vaccine Information Center and has distributed information to thousands of
parents across the nation, as well as having collected data on many hundreds
of cases of vaccine damage.
"Dissatisfied Parents Together was instrumental in
educating Congress and the public about the need for a no-fault compensation
system alternative to a lawsuit, which resulted in passage of the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660; 42 USC
300aa 1 et seq.). The vaccine injury compensation and safety legislation
was supported by more than fifty major health organizations and drug
companies."—H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher, A Shot in the
Dark, p. 213.
The reason the law was enacted was because parents were
happy that it provided a means of financial payment to those families damaged
by vaccinations, and it provided protection to the drug companies against
those receiving those payments. (In order to receive the payments, they could
not additionally sue the physicians, hospitals, drug firms, etc.) However,
provision was made for those who wished to sue rather than receive the
compensation:
"During the five years it took to pass the bill, DPT participated in
negotiations with the American Academy of Pediatrics, vaccine manufacturers,
and legislative staffs to create the first no-fault compensation bill of its
kind in America. During that time, the vaccine manufacturers and the American
Medical Association pressed for passage of an exclusive remedy compensation
bill that would have cut off all vaccine injury lawsuits in the courts. The
exclusive remedy bill was also supported by HHS [the Department of Health and
Human Services] and the Justice Department, but the bill that was passed
preserved the parents’ right to choose between the compensation system and
accessing the court system to sue negligent doctors and manufacturers."—H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher, A Shot in the Dark, p. 214.
"The United States Government was compelled to step
in and rescue drug companies from the ruinous lawsuits brought against them
by dismayed and angry parents of children damaged by the pertussis vaccine.
Financial investments of drug companies and the vaccine industry dictate the
direction of research on immunization policy. Their interests lie in
promotion of vaccines, not investigation of side effects."—R.
Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 73.
All aspects of the law will prove most helpful if, after
the vaccination is given, your child is damaged. We hope you will never
need to use it! However, its safety provisions can provide some
assistance in your efforts to avoid "mandatory" vaccinations. It
specifies that the physician is required by law to notify each vaccinee of all
the dangers, prior to injecting the vaccine. This is an important law, yet
your state and county officials will never introduce it in their conversations
with you—and many would prefer to believe it does not exist.
Therefore it is your responsibility to know about this law.
You may need that information later.
This law has two main aspects: safety provisions and a no-fault federal
compensation program. (For further information on this second aspect, see "The
Compensation System and How it Works," listed in this book under the
section, "Sources of Information").
SAFETY PROVISIONS OF THE
NCVIA
The safety reform portion of NCVIA is as follows:
1 - The NCVIA requires that doctors provide parents with
information about childhood diseases and vaccines prior to vaccination. This
information must include vaccine risks; that is, the possible dangers that
could result from taking each vaccine the physician offers you.
This, of course, is a very important proviso. Yet very few
doctors inform parents about vaccine risks, even though vaccine manufacturers
place written warning information in every package of vaccine they sell. So
the information is there, in hand, when the box is opened.
" ‘According to the CDC (Centers for Disease
Control, the federal agency in Atlanta which oversees such matters),
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 fade
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
that is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary
immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory
immunization?"—H.E. Buttram, M.D., and J.C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The
Immunization Trio, 1991, p. 110. [The initial quotation is from the writings
of Grace Girdwain.]
2 - The NCVIA requires that all doctors who administer
vaccines report vaccine reactions to federal health officials. Barbara Loe
Fisher, executive vice-president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC),
said this:
"The will and intent of Congress in enacting the National Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986 is being subverted. This subversion is resulting in an
appalling under reporting of vaccine reactions and deaths by both private and
public physicians [there is also] a lack of record keeping and/or willingness
on the part of physicians to divulge the manufacturer’s name and lot number
when a reaction occurs."—Barbara L. Fisher, National Vaccine
Information Center [See "Sources of Information" for the NVIC
address].
"According to NVIC, doctors often justify their
refusal to report vaccine reactions by merely claiming the shot had nothing
to do with the child’s injury or death. Some pediatricians may actually
believe this, because they quote vaccine policymakers in the AAP and CDC who
tell them that the vaccine is completely safe. However, the fear of being
sued for failing to warn parents of the potential dangers and
contraindications may also be a consideration."—Neil Z. Miller,
Vaccinations: Are They Really Safe and Effective? 1992, p. 59.
"Doctors and pediatricians are not the only
instruments to the Medical-Industrial Complex who are likely to deny the
existence of vaccine reactions and cover up the truth. The medically trained
coroners are also members of this elite group . . Rarely is the vaccination
ever listed as the cause of death. Instead, they use impressive terms to
falsify the death certificate: cardiac arrest; possible myocarditis;
bronchial bilateral pneumonia; septicemia due to septic tonsillitis;
lymphatic leukemia; streptococcal cellulitis; tubercular meningitis;
infantile paralysis; and sudden infant death syndrome, to name a few."—Op.
cit., p. 61.
3 - The NCVIA requires doctors to record vaccine reactions
in an individual’s permanent record.
The problem here is similar to that discussed under the second requirement,
above. Just as vaccine reactions are not being reported, so they are not being
properly recorded. The reason for both is the same: to avoid the possibility
of a malpractice lawsuit—by eliminating the evidence in advance.
4 - The NCVIA requires doctors to keep a record of the date
that each vaccine was given, the manufacturer’s name and lot number, where
the vaccine was administered, and the professional title (M.D., R.N., etc.) of
the person administering the vaccine. This requirement is closely related to
those preceding it. Obviously, such regulations, as the above four—which can
be so time-consuming to doctors, hospitals, and public officials—indicate
that vaccines can be dangerous!
5 - The NCVIA mandates that the federal government begin
urging manufacturers to improve existing vaccines and develop new, safer
vaccines.
As a result of the passage of NCVIA, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) started the National Vaccine Advisory
Committee (NVAC). The NVAC was assigned the task of getting the universities
and vaccine manufacturers to develop and disseminate vaccine information
materials for distribution by health care providers.
This information was to include negative reactions,
contraindications, etc. That information was also to tell the general public
that a federal no-fault compensation program was now available for those who
are injured or die from a mandated vaccine. (No, you have never heard of this
before.) It is obvious that, according to NCVIA, Congress wanted the public to
be told about the dangers of vaccines, and to be told about the available
financial compensation when vaccines injured those receiving them under
mandatory vaccination laws.
But that was as far as it went. The entire matter
essentially went nowhere. It is a national law, but no teeth have ever been
set in action to require getting the information out to the public. Barbara
Loe Fisher, who chairs the subcommittee on adverse reactions for the National
Vaccine Advisory Committee gives her comment:
"Even though Congress gave NVAC a dual mission: ‘to achieve optimal
prevention of human infectious disease through immunization’ and ‘to
achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines,’ I had
observed that the majority of NVAC time was spent discussing how to promote
vaccination. The equally important goal of identifying ways to prevent vaccine
reactions appears to be a subject that causes discomfort among many committee
members, is viewed as an obstacle to promoting vaccination and is generally
given little time or in-depth treatment (in a September 16, 1990, letter
written by Barbara Loe Fisher to Donald A. Henderson, chairman of the National
Vaccine Advisory Committee, p. 1).
"Not only is there a lack of concern about the
subject of vaccine reactions on the part of some committee members, but
there is a deliberate attempt to deny the reality of vaccine reactions,
deaths, and injuries . . (Committee members need] to spend more time trying
to find ways to solve problems associated with preventing vaccine reactions
rather than trying to find ways to reword subcommittee reports to deny the
existence of [children who were injured or killed during] a vaccine
reaction."—Barbara Loe Fisher, letter dated September 16, 1990, to
Donald A. Henderson, chairman of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee,
pp. 1-2.
As usual, the underlying problem is that there are powerful
organizations in America that do not want people to know that there is
anything wrong with vaccines. If the public learned that, it might stop mass
vaccinations.
"HHS was to satisfy this legal requirement by no later than December
22, 1988. However, by March 4, 1991, this matter was still unsettled, and
notice was provided to Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., secretary of HHS, of the
intent to bring a lawsuit against Sullivan and the Department for failure to
perform an ‘act or duty’ as required by law. This notice was submitted by
NVIC on behalf of several parents of vaccination-aged children (NVIC Mini
News, Vienna, VA., March 1991, p.1).
"Because HHS has failed to publish the required
information, high risk children who should not receive one or more of the
vaccines may suffer from avoidable brain damage, permanent disabilities, and
even death. And parents whose children were injured or died from one or more
of the vaccines during the past few years may still be unaware of their
right to seek compensation.
"It should be noted that vaccine guidelines were
eventually submitted by the advisory committee (after the December 22, 1988,
deadline) but were rejected by NVIC on the grounds that they ‘failed to
meet even minimal standards of scientific rigor, candor, and fairness.’
Vaccine risks were systematically understated or ignored. For example, the
proposed guidelines stated that ‘a few people will have a serious problem,’
but they do not mention that a ‘serious problem’ could be permanent
brain damage or death. The guidelines also reveal a selective use of
scientific data, downplay the true rates of adverse reactions, and give
inconsistent, incomplete, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous information
regarding contraindications."—Neil Z. Miller, Vaccinations: Are They
Really Safe and Effective? 1992, p. 62.
But how can it be otherwise, when such powerful lobbies and
pressure groups are so influential in Washington, D.C.? For example, James
Cherry and Edward Mortimer, two prominent physicians who were
"impartial" advisers to the Department of Health and Human Services
(the federal agency responsible for developing and promoting vaccine safety
guidelines) were found to have been paid $800,000 by pertussis vaccine
manufacturers for expert witness and consulting fees and research grants
(National Vaccine Information Center press release, dated May 9, 1991).
In America, medical schools are subsidized by the foundations and grants of
the multi-billion dollar drug industry. That same industry spends an average
of $6,000 a year on every physician in America—to get him to prescribe their
drugs.
In England, in order to drum up more business, the National
Health Service pays a ‘bonus’ to doctors with documented vaccination rates
greater than specified percentages (Richard Moskowitz, M. D.,
"Vaccination: A Sacrament of Modern Medicine," speech in Manchester,
England, September 1991).
America now spends many times more money on medical care
than does England, Canada, or Japan. In fact, our total medical bill is now
around $400 billion a year and growing at a rate close to 15% annually.
Medical care is a terrific success story in the United
States: More than two-thirds of all Americans suffer from chronic illness; 132
million workdays are lost to illness at a cost to industry of $25 billion a
year; 36 million suffer from arthritis, 250,000 of these are children; 12
million Americans have diabetes; 43.5 million have heart or blood vessel
disease; 550,000 die each year of a heart attack; 525,600 new cases of cancer
are diagnosed yearly; 420,000 die of cancer each year. On and on it goes.
COMPENSATION PROVISIONS
OF THE NCVIA
The compensation portion of NCVIA is as follows:
1 - The NCVIA would provide this financial compensation as
an alternative to suing vaccine manufacturers and physicians, when children or
adults are injured or die because of reactions to mandated vaccines.
2 - The NCVIA would provide for awards up to $250,000, per case, if the
individual dies or to compensate for pain and suffering if the child survived
but was brain damaged. Awards were also to be given for permanent injuries
involving learning disabilities, seizure disorders, mental retardation, and
paralysis.
In official physician’s reports, vaccine-caused injury
and death to children are often attributed to some cause other than the
vaccine. In addition, the public is not widely told about this federal
compensation law, lest they start fearing to have their children vaccinated—or
overwhelm it with claims. Yet, in spite of these drawbacks, it is highly
significant that, by July 1992 (less than four years from the time that the
NCVIA was enacted), more than $249 million had been awarded for vaccine-caused
injuries or death. Thousands of cases are still pending ("On
Vaccination Safety," Washington Post, November 2, 1992; for further
documentation, see U.S. Claims Court records.). At the rate it is going,
the number of claims may eventually bankrupt the U.S. Treasury. But that will
be no problem, as long as vaccine sales continue. Nothing must stand in the
way of "protecting the children."
In connection with these filings for claims, the Food and
Drug Administration released a mid-1992 report, which said that more than
17,000 injuries and 350 deaths from vaccines had occurred in the 20-month
period from November 31, 1990, to July 31, 1992 ("On Vaccination
Safety," Washington Post, November 2, 1992). If you know
someone who believes that vaccinations hardly ever hurt anyone, read them this
paragraph.
It is also of interest that many of the awards given for
pertussis (whooping cough vaccine) deaths were complicated by the fact that
physicians had initially recorded them as "sudden infant death
syndrome" (NVIC Mini News, November 1990, p. 2).
The intriguing question is who pays for these awards? The
answer is the general public.
Congress voted a special tax on all mandated vaccines sold after October 1,
1988. In some cases, this tax is several dollars per injection. (DPT
[diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus] and MMR [mumps, measles, and rubella]
have the heaviest tax; apparently they cause the most death and damage.
Remember that fact; it is based on detailed federal statistics—which you and
I do not have access to.) This tax is passed on to consumers who are, in
effect, paying vaccine insurance to pay for the damage which may be received
from the vaccine.
In ancient times, people sacrificed their children to
Molech; now they are required to offer them to vaccines.
VACCINATIONS
WHEN TRAVELING ABROAD
What about traveling to other countries? Can you go around
the world without vaccinations? The World Health Organization (WHO) based in
Geneva, Switzerland, grants American visitors and tourists the right to refuse
shots when traveling internationally. You simply declare exemption under
Clause 83 of the International Sanitary Code, issued by WHO and adopted by all
its members.
Exceptions built into Clause 83: (1) If you come from an
infected area, vaccinations are necessary OR you might be quarantined
(detained in one place) for up to 14 days from the time you left the infected
area IF the health department of the nation you arrive in thinks it necessary.
If you come from an area where there has been an epidemic, you will probably
be put under surveillance. This means that, together with the local health
department, you must keep watch for suspicious signs or symptoms. You will
probably be required to report periodically to the local health officer for a
period up to 14 days, from the time of your departure from the infected area.
If symptoms occur, you must immediately turn yourself in and submit to
quarantine or isolation. (2) If an area you wish to enter is infected, you may
be detained until the public health official permits you to continue on.
In actual practice, all this is quite remote. Even if it
did happen, it would not matter whether you had taken your shots before
leaving your home nation; you would be quarantined for 14 days along with
those who had refused the vaccines.
Every year thousands travel abroad without taking vaccinations, and with
little or no inconvenience. They simply sign a waiver before they start their
overseas travel. When you receive your passport, request a copy of Foreign
Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunizations. That is the
sheet that spells out your right to not be inoculated in your travels. Keep a
copy in the bottom of your suitcase.
VACCINATIONS IN THE ARMED
FORCES
Can a person in the U.S. Armed Forces obtain a waiver, so
he will not have to take an inoculation? Yes, all branches of the Service
provide "immunization waivers." If they did not, they could be sued
for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations.
Because waivers are available, the person accepting vaccination thereby takes
responsibility for what happens thereafter.
The procedure goes this way: When a person first enlists,
he must state his objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is
"religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a
low tolerance to medications of any kind. But, if that person does not
initially sign that written vaccination waiver statement, he cannot thereafter
be exempted from receiving inoculations. Henceforth, the military has the
right to do what it wants to with that person.
The underlying point is that a person did not give up basic
rights when he enlisted. Even though he may be in the Service, no one has the
right to immunize him against his will.
GETTING
STATE VACCINATION LAWS
MODIFIED
"Parents often need booster doses of vaccine education. They should
keep in mind three points of information: (1) Vaccines have immediate,
sometimes drastic, side effects. (2) Vaccines have unknown long-term side
effects which may include post-encephalitis brain damage. (3) Vaccine efficacy
may decrease as adults when the diseases are more serious."—R.
Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 89.
When enough people set to work to accomplish something
good, they can succeed. The public needs to be educated and the laws changed.
Frankly, in this work women are frequently much more influential than men.
They are the mothers of America. They are the ones who bear and raise the
children. Nothing is more ferocious than a mother protecting her young.
Working together toward a common goal unites people and, in the process, gets
a lot of publicity in the newspapers and on local and statewide television.
There are individuals out there who actually set to work to
change state vaccination laws—and make them more liberal. Here is one
example:
"It was now time [for our group] to contact
legislators and formally open an area chapter of the National Health
Federation.
"On January 4, 1982, I mailed letters to the five
House of Delegates and the three state senators of our district, requesting
that Section D of Article 3, Chapter 2 of the Code of Virginia (the compulsory
immunization law) be amended to include an exemption based upon personal
beliefs. I cited the unconstitutionality of the present law. Three delegates
replied saying they would investigate the matter, and our senator from this
area, Joe Canada, said he would send my letter to legislative services to have
a bill drafted.
"On May 13, 1982, the Tidewater chapter of the National Health
Federation had its first meeting. Our first project was getting a petition
signed which requested that the Compulsory Immunization Laws of Virginia be
amended to provide for an exemption based upon personal conviction. The
petition mentioned that there were 19 states that already had this exemption.
An accompanying sheet listed, with references, some of the diseases and
disabilities that have been linked to immunizations and pointed out that there
are natural and harmless ways of preventing and treating so-called dread
diseases for which vaccines are given."—Walene James, Immunization: The
Reality Behind the Myth, 1988, p. 149.
Well, in this book we have discussed a serious problem. It
does not affect everyone who receives a vaccine. But it affects a significant
percentage of them. Many of the viruses injected into people during
vaccinations are "attenuated"; that means they are sick live
viruses. Because these organisms are so small, hundreds of millions are pumped
into an arm with a single squeeze on the syringe. Would you like to place
millions of sick germs in the bloodstream of someone you loved?
What should you do about this to protect others? What
should you do to protect your own family? Personal decisions must be made. An
abundance of data has been given to you in this book. It is our prayer that
your decision will be a wise one.
DISCLAIMER
Since neither the author and researcher of this book, nor
the publisher, is an attorney at law, they cannot attest to the ultimate legal
status of any of the data and suggestions made in this book, in reference to
vaccines, vaccinations, or vaccination laws.
The information given was factual, to the best of their
knowledge. The methods of obtaining waivers have been successfully used by
others, but that does not prove they will always be successful, nor in all
states.
We therefore recommend that, if in doubt, before any action
is taken—that you consult a reputable attorney in your own state and
carefully consider his recommendations.
Nothing in this book is to be construed as suggesting that anyone should,
or should not, receive immunizations of various kinds. This is the sole
decision of each individual. Our objective is to present, to those who desire
them, their legal rights as American citizens regarding this matter.
