Vaccination: Fraud & Dishonest Mistakes
One of the greatest lies of Big Pharma is finally being exposed – Don’t Expose Your Children to Vaccines!
Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system."[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.
And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.
Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.[ii]
The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."
The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]
These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges. Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other "stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.
This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."
Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?
Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.
The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.
Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….
Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.
Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.
It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.
We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:
"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.
"The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody." - Magda Taylor, Informed Parent
"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."- Private Eye 24/1/2002
"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."- Ted Koren DC
*PubMed Health
[i] CDC.gov, Basics and Common Questions: Immunity Types
[ii] B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity. Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26. Epub 2012 Mar 1. PMID: 22386268
[iii] Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology. 1992 Apr ;42(4):761-4. PMID: 1565228
From Green Media Info @ http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination
Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated
by Mike Adams
For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)
Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.
New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.
As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832...)
In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."
This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:
"GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine's protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it's still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn't provide lasting protection from whooping cough."
Huh? So let me get this straight:
• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.
• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.
• Doctors openly admit the vaccine "doesn't provide lasting protection" against the disease.
• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!
That's essentially like saying, "We know these vaccines don't really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway."
Whooping cough outbreak? Demand everybody be vaccinated!
Despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccines actually cause an increase in the risk of being infected with whooping cough, every time a whooping cough outbreak occurs, there's a mad rush of everybody screaming, "Vaccinate! Vaccinate! Vaccinate!"
For example, this mindless article in The Seattle Times typifies the kind of brain-dead journalism observed across the mainstream media: "Whooping cough spreading fast in state; vaccinations urged." (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017902210_whoopingco...)
This mindless, irrational cry for vaccinations utterly contradicts scientific truth, but it get published over and over again with zero skepticism and no intelligent questioning by anyone in the (whored-out) mainstream media.
Whooping cough vaccines, it turns out, do nothing to reduce the rate of whooping cough infections. But they do accomplish something else that's even more important for Big Pharma. Care to guess what that is?
You guessed it: Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation! The vaccines cause the very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.
The drug companies figured it out a long time ago, see? The best way to SELL a vaccine that claims to treat a disease is to make sure the vaccine contains the disease! Thus, the vaccination itself becomes the pathway to re-infection and repeat business!
Want to make money in the cancer industry? Put cancer viruses into the vaccines! Oops, Merck already did that, didn't they? Here's an admission by a Merck scientist of exactly this point:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html
How the media is trying to spin these shocking revelations about the failure of vaccines
The media is trying to spin this revelation, of course, claiming that the whooping cough vaccine merely "wears out" or "fades over time." While that alone is an admission of total vaccine failure, it's actually much worse: The findings show that vaccines make children MORE vulnerable to infection than the unvaccinated children.
Virtually nowhere in the lamestream media will you see any real admission that whooping cough vaccines are based entirely on scientific fraud because they simply don't work. That simple truth is just not allowed to be printed anywhere except places like NaturalNews, where we haven't sold out to Big Pharma's corporate interests. The fact that even a hint of this has appeared in Reuters is astonishing, and I suspect they will pull their story as quickly as possible before it starts getting too much attention.
If vaccines "fade out" then they don't work!
The bedrock of vaccination theory is that when your body is exposed to a weakened virus, it will build up its supply of antibodies that will forever recognize that virus and defend your body against it. Sound familiar? That's the fairy tale told to every parent and child by a vaccine-wielding brainwashed doctor.
The key element of the story is that your body is supposed to keep those antibodies forever, right? Just like if you get the chicken pox one time, you won't ever get it again because your body is immune to the chicken pox, right?
But wait: Now they're saying vaccines fade out over time. Somehow your body "forgets" the antibodies, they now admit, so you need a booster shot, what else? (Repeat sales, anyone?)
So then, vaccines don't really invoke lifetime antibodies at all, do they? And if that's the case, then the entire vaccine mythology crumbles. No lifetime antibodies means the vaccines aren't really working like real infections (such as the chicken pox). Something doesn't add up here, especially when you figure that vaccines make children MORE susceptible to future infections.
Healthy kids are not vaccinated kids
Want to find the healthiest children in America? Find families who follow these rules:
#1) They live on small farms and their children play in the dirt (they have contact with nature).
#2) Their children are all home schooled.
#3) None of their children are vaccinated.
#4) They drink raw milk and eat farm fresh foods.
As you will readily find, these are the healthiest, smartest kids in America! They don't have problems with autism, allergies, cancer or ADHD. They are bright, healthy, and easily capable of surviving an infection of chicken pox.
The least healthy children in America are vaccinated children who eat public school food (GMOs) and never spend time in nature. These are the asthmatics, the diabetics, the ADHD cases, the suicidal psych drug takers. They're vaccine damaged and nutritionally depleted, and they catch every cold every winter, it seems, you know what I mean?
Media lies about vaccine effectiveness (written by brain-dead journalists)
The media, you see, is so steeped in lies about vaccines that they are now utterly unable to recognize the truth. In the Seattle Times article mentioned above, for example, you'll find this mysterious sentence in the story: "Pertussis vaccines are about 85 percent effective overall..."
And yet I'll bet you twenty bucks there's not a single journalist on the entire Seattle Times staff who even understands what that number means and where it came from. They probably think it means that for every 100 people vaccinated with the whooping cough vaccine, 85 percent of them will be completely protected against the disease even if they are exposed to it. (Insert laughter here...)
But it's nothing like that at all. This number is simply made up. It is invented from fabricated relative statistics cherry-picked out of distorted clinical trials funded by drug companies. It's sort of like the CDC's completely fabricated number of "35,000 people die each year from the flu" -- a bald-faced conjuration of pure fiction that's repeated as if it were fact across every paper in the country. And even if you believe the 85 percent number, it was probably derived from something more like this: For every 1,000 children in America, only 1 catches the whooping cough, but if those 1,000 children are vaccinated (says the corporate-funded study), then only 0.15 children out of 1,000 will catch the whooping cough.
Thus, in other words, using these numbers you'd have to vaccinate 1,000 children in order to prevent less than one child from getting the whooping cough -- and meanwhile, out of those 1,000 children perhaps 10 - 20 of them suffer vaccine damage in other ways that are far serious, including autism.
Lamestream media journalists who work for these rag papers just don't have any real ability to exercise critical thinking anymore. They don't know how to read scientific studies. They don't understand numbers. And you know why? Because they've been over-vaccinated! And vaccines cause neurological damage, which is why the most brain-dead people you'll find in the country are the ones who line up every year to receive annual flu shots.
When it comes to vaccines, the only thing mainstream newspapers know how to do is rephrase corporate press releases and spout vaccine propaganda that ends up harming, maiming and often killing more innocent children.
That's why NaturalNews continues to tell the truth about vaccine fraud -- because it saves lives by protecting children against bad science and stupid journalism.
Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit
by Mike Adams
According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 -- a complaint which has just now been unsealed -- vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective."
See that False Claims Act document at:
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf
According to Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, the Merck company engaged in all the following behavior:
• Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate."
• In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies. As reported in CourthouseNews.com:
Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint. (http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm)
• Merck then used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."
• Merck's vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps. (Gee, really? This is what NaturalNews has been reporting for years... vaccines are actually formulated to keep the outbreaks going because it's great for repeat business!)
• Merck used its false claims of "95 percent effectiveness" to monopolize the vaccine market and eliminate possible competitors.
• The Merck vaccine fraud has been going on since the late 1990's, say the Merck virologists.
• Testing of Merck's vaccine was never done against "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild. Instead, test results were simply falsified to achieve the desired outcome.
• This entire fraud took place "with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management."
• Merck scientists "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings," according to court documents (see below).
US government chose to ignore the 2010 False Claims Act!
Rather than taking action on this false claims act, the U.S. government simply ignored it, thereby protecting Merck's market monopoly instead of properly serving justice. This demonstrates the conspiracy of fraud between the U.S. government, FDA regulators and the vaccine industry.
Chatom Primary Care sues Merck for Sherman Act monopolization, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws
Following the unsealing of this 2010 False Claims Act, Chatom Primary Care, based in Alabama, smelled something rotten. Three days ago, Chatom filed a lawsuit against Merck. That lawsuit record is available here:
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck-Mumps.pdf
It alleges, among other shocking things:
[Merck engaged in] ...a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.
Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher.
In reality, Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal -- by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data -- that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.
Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.
...incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results...
...destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator...
...threatened a virologist in Merck's vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA...
...the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. And while this is a disease that, according to the Centers for Disease Control ('CDC'), was supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck's vaccine has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.
Chatom Primary Care also alleges that the fraudulent Merck vaccine contributed to the 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and a 2009 outbreak elsewhere. It says, "there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks..."
This investigation is only beginning
Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms
by: Ethan A. Huff
If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.
For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted -- but never has -- for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.
Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys' sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.
Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)
"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children," said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. "SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen."
Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate
Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.
"The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal," said Wrangham. "But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."
Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/
From http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html
Vaccine Exemptions: Do They Really Put Others at Risk?
Parents who exercise a vaccine exemption for their children are often ridiculed for putting their own children and others at risk. However, legally and medically, unvaccinated children do not pose a significant health risk to themselves or anyone else. Alternative vaccine views support this assertion, but the reasoning in this article comes straight from mainstream vaccine beliefs, accepted medical practice and current law.
First, from the legal perspective, forty-eight state legislatures, federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services), and all U.S. territories offer religious exemptions to immunizations. The state legislatures and federal agencies providing these exemptions are presumed to have considered whether or not the exercise of these exemptions would pose a significant health risk. They would not have enacted these exemption laws if their exercise would pose a significant health risk. Thus, there is a legal presumption that the exercise of a vaccine exemption does not pose a significant risk to anyone.
This legal presumption is not a mere exercise in semantics or logic. It is based on the widely accepted herd immunity theory, which tells us that so long as most of the members of a population are immune, all members of the population are protected. Indeed, current vaccine policy necessarily depends on this theory. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says: "No vaccine is 100% effective. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. For reasons related to the individual, some will not develop immunity." (It’s curious that they blame the "individual" and not the vaccines. Regardless, the CDC admits that this is why the majority of outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.) In contrast, national exemption rates run about 1% - 2.5% on average. Furthermore, just as vaccinated children are not necessarily immune, exempt children aren’t necessarily lacking immunity. Many exempt children develop natural immunity, and according to the CDC, they don’t have to get sick for that to happen. The bottom line is, you can’t determine the immunity status of any given individual child by the child’s vaccination status alone. But with the herd immunity theory, we don’t need to; we need only be concerned with a populations’ immune status collectively.
Not only do non-immune children (vaccinated or not) not pose a significant health risk now, they pose no potential future risk, as protective laws and procedures have been put into place to account for them. For example, most states require exempt children to stay home from school during a local outbreak, for the duration of the incubation period of the outbreak disease. (Of course, since most non-immune children are vaccinated and they are not required to stay home, this practice discriminates against exempt children, but it is common policy around the U.S.) Most states also have laws that can require emergency vaccines and throw exemptions out the window and/or quarantine of unvaccinated persons in a declared, infectious disease emergency. So, neither exempt children nor their non-immune, vaccinated peers pose a significant health risk—now, or at any time in the future.
A related issue concerns school administrators who fear that they risk liability if they allow exemptions, particularly in private schools. The short answer is that parents do not place themselves or anyone else at risk of liability for exercising a lawful exemption. By definition, liability occurs only when a law is breached. If all concerned are complying with the law, there won’t be a liability risk. Again, there is a legal presumption; here, that the proper exercise of a legal exemption does not create a significant liability risk—or else the exemption law would not have been enacted in the first place.
Myths about vaccines and infectious disease persist, despite voluminous information refuting them, probably because fear is more powerful than reason. As the above reveals, this is true even within the world of vaccine mainstream beliefs. One of the more common mistakes comes from trying to apply concepts to individuals that really only apply to groups—that is the flawed basis for discriminating against exempt children and their parents. Those uncomfortable with this article have recourse with the state legislatures and promulgating regulatory agencies; that is, they can pursue changes in the law. Absent that, legally and medically, the exercise of a lawful vaccine exemption is, necessarily, a reasonably safe option that poses no significant health risk to anyone.
This article is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute medical or legal advice.
For the purposes of this article, I am putting aside the fact that the herd immunity has been disproven many times over in the medical literature, and the fact that antibody production, the measure of vaccine immunity, is not a reliable indicator of actual immunity, according to the medical literature. For cites, see Dispelling Vaccination Myths, http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/DispellingVaccinationMythsx.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations, Misconception #2. The majority of people who get disease have been vaccinated, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
Non-medical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements, The Journal of the American Medical Association, http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/14/1757.full.
See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations, Glossary, "Asymptomatic infection: The presence of an infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection," http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm
For additional related research on GreenmedInfo.com read "The Shocking LACK of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines," and peruse our Vaccine Research Database which focuses on collating data from the National Library of Medicine on the underreported, adverse effects of vaccines.
Alan Phillips, J.D. is a nationally recognized legal expert on vaccine rights issues. He helps clients, activists and other attorneys nationally with vaccine rights issues and legislative initiatives. Learn more at www.vaccinerights.com
From http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-exemptions-do-they-really-put-others-risk
New Illuminati comments: The majority of modern docterds only entered the field of medicine because they are greedy, selfish control freaks; exceptions are few and far between. If you want to stay healthy avoid docterds whenever possible and educate yourself – learn how your body works, where and what your organs are, and how to heal yourself and others – and don’t learn from docterds!
For more telling information on this topic see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/vaccination
and http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5CFDF83B1169A047F532A3C4717A9513
Help This Unique Independent Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Just press the button -
Xtra Image by David Dees via http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/July20101/whovac_dees.jpg
For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @ New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com
And see
This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…
Live long and prosper!
