Support the Natural Solutions Foundation’s “Stop the Shot” Federal Lawsuit to prevent the use of any influenza vaccine. Set up a recurring donation now:http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189
This long, detailed and immensely important article makes it crystal clear where the lies and distortions are about vaccines, whether they work, whether they cause chronic illnesses and whether they are safe.
Before you allow yourself or your wards, children, family, elders or others to take another vaccination, read this article. Listen to Dr. King discuss this article on the Dr. Rima Reports live (www.HealthFreedomPortal.org to join the chat and listen to the show or at www.OracleBroadcasting.com to listen to the show or in the archives at www.OracleBroadcasting.com following the broadcast on Sunday, October 3, 2010, 10 AM to 1 PM Eastern time.
Dr. King knows full well that vaccines are intentionally used to create disease and profit while they do nothing to prevent disease. Listen to him, read the article below and share this article as widely as possible.
Thanks for your activism. Yours in health and freedom,
Vaccines, Vaccination Programs and Knowing1 Misrepresentations
Paul G. King, PhD
Facility Automation Management Engineering (FAME) Systems
33A Hoffman Avenue, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034-1922
Before discussing the subjects in the title of this article, this commenter would be remiss if
he did not first set forth his biases and conflicts concerning the issues discussed in the sections and
paragraphs that follow this introduction.
As a scientist who understands that:
? Terms must be clearly defined,
? Statements must be supported by factual evidence and, where that evidence is not
readily available, appropriate citations thereto,
? Much of the information on vaccines and vaccination programs available in the
mainstream media and publications backed by the Establishment and its minions is
more propaganda, cant and Orwellian newspeak than sound science, and
? Vaccines or vaccination programs where the vaccine is reasonably safe and the
protection provided is either life saving (e.g., the rabies vaccines) or the prophylactic
vaccine is reasonably safe and effective in protecting almost all (i.e., >90 %) of those
vaccinated, long-lasting (i.e., protects that not less than 90 % of those vaccinated for
a period of not less than 50 years), and medically cost-effective, for example, the
measles only vaccine and vaccination program) should be supported,
this commenter must stand against: a) the misrepresentation of vaccines and vaccination programs
in any manner, and b) vaccination programs in which: i) those inoculated with the vaccine are not
protected or ii) more who are vaccinated suffer serious adverse injury from the vaccine than there
are disease cases in the population segments that are being vaccinated (e.g., the early childhood
hepatitis B vaccination program).
In addition, since the Establishment continually spews out a never-ending stream of near-
religious vaccine and vaccination apologia, this author sees no need to spend any time discussing
the inflated and often deceptive presentation of vaccines and vaccination programs as the
“salvation” of mankind – because such discussions belong in the realm of religion and not science.
With the preceding in mind, this author will now begin to address fundamental vaccine and
vaccination-program misrepresentations that stand in the way of our right to choose or decline any
prophylactic medical treatment, including any prophylactic inoculation with any vaccine or serum
as we, and not society, sees fit for ourselves and the minors and non-competent persons in our care.
1. “Vaccines Are Safe”
The first misrepresentation about vaccines and by far the worst is that, as a group (or
individually), “vaccines are the safest of medicines” or, more simplistically, “vaccines are safe”.
The factual evidence and the legislation protecting the vaccine makers, vaccine providers
Where the term “knowing” is used in the “knowingly” or “knew” sense that is defined in 21 U.S.C. § 321(bb) “The
term “knowingly” or “knew” means that a person, with respect to information – (1) has actual knowledge of the
information, or (2) acts in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information”.
and the healthcare establishment clearly exposes a different reality, which, in its most telling form,
can be found in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP2; Title 42 of the
United States Code in Sections 300aa-10 through 300aa-34 [42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 – 300aa-34]) in §
300aa-22(b)(1) which, under: a) the umbrella of “Standards of Responsibility” (§ 300aa-22.) and b)
the heading at § 300aa-22(b), “Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings”, states:
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a
vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after
October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even
though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and
warnings”. [Emphasis added]
If vaccines were truly safe, then there would be no need for: a) any NVICP legislation to
protect the vaccine makers or the healthcare providers from civil lawsuits for damages, or b) any “if
the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable” language to absolve vaccine
manufacturers from damages that include “vaccine-related injury or death”.
Clearly, unbiased scientists, the federal lawmakers, and the informed public know that, as a
group or, in most instances, individually, vaccines are not the safest medicines.
2. “Vaccines Are Effective”
If vaccines were truly effective, then there would be:
a. No need for any State to mandate any vaccination program for any vaccine –
everyone would be demanding inoculations for themselves and their loved ones,
b. No need for any mention of the unproven theory of “herd immunity”, which, in
reality, can only be a theory of “herd protection” because vaccines do not provide
blanket immunity (defined as lifetime [>50 year] protection from disease) to even
those who have been inoculated with the recommended vaccines from 2 to 6 or more
times, depending upon the vaccine, and
c. No need to license vaccines based on their manufacturers’ claimed levels of
“efficacy” as measured by some minimum-antibody-level surrogate for
Given the preceding factual realities, it is clear to any rational person that unqualified
phrases, like “vaccines are safe” and “vaccination programs are effective”, are simply propaganda
slogans that vaccine makers, the healthcare establishment, pro-vaccine academics, pro-vaccine US
governmental agencies (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], the National
Institutes of Health [NIH] and the Public Health Service [PHS], to name a few) and other vaccine
apologists continually use in their efforts to both brainwash and coerce the public into accepting
whatever vaccines and vaccination programs that “these groups” have decided, at a given point in
time, are “good” for the public as a whole with little or no regard for the fiscal or physical health of
The full title of the NVICP in the United States Code is: TITLE 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELFARE, CHAPTER 6A – PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBCHAPTER XIX – VACCINES, Part 2 –
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
any individual or individuals that such vaccination programs may harm, maim or kill or, for that
matter, the fiscal and physical health of the people of the United States Of America (USA).
3. “Vaccine Panacea: The More Vaccines We Get, The Healthier We Will Be”
a. The Legacy (Pre-NVICP) Vaccination Programs
Reviewing the history of vaccines and vaccination programs in the USA, up until the early
1900s, the only widely used human prophylactic (disease-preventive) vaccine was the live-virus
cowpox vaccine, vaccina; the only other general human-use vaccine was the attenuated rabies
vaccine used to treat people who had been bitten by a rabid animal; and the only large-scale mass
“vaccination” program was the “smallpox” inoculation program.
In the 1920s, a diphtheria vaccine was introduced and its use spread; in the 1950s, the use of
pertussis vaccines became widespread but these morphed into the first combination the DTP
vaccine, which was to become the first Thimerosal-preserved combination vaccine to be used in a
mass vaccination program.
In the 1950s, the Salk inactivated-polio vaccines were introduced for mass use without
adequate testing and purity leading to: a) an initial increase in paralytic polio cases until the clinical
definition of paralytic polio was changed and b) the introduction of SV-40 and other animal viruses
which were, to varying degrees and levels, contaminants of all the polio vaccines produced for the
next three decades; and, a few years later in the early 1960s, the live-virus Sabin oral polio vaccines
displaced the Salk inactivated-polio vaccines – the Sabin oral polio vaccines were used in the USA
until 2000 when, because all paralytic polio cases were cases caused by exposure to the vaccine-
strains of the live vaccine, the US switched back to a Salk-type inactivated-virus polio vaccines,
which is still in use today.
In 1963, a live-virus measles vaccine was introduced and put into mass use shortly after its
introduction; the measles-only vaccine was followed by a measles-rubella (Merck’s measles-rubella
vaccines, MR® and MR® II, that have been discontinued); then a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine
(Merck’s MMR® vaccine); and finally an improved measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (Merck’s
MMR® II vaccine)3.
In the early 1980s, though some other vaccines were being licensed, they were not being
recommended for mass use in childhood vaccination programs because of the increasing number of
lawsuits where the parents of vaccine-injured children, principally by the DTP vaccines and the
Polio vaccines but also by the measles and MMR vaccines, were winning ever larger monetary
judgments against the vaccine companies.
Faced with decreasing profit from the lawsuits, the major vaccine makers threatened to stop
making vaccines unless the government passed legislation that protected them from most all direct
civil legal actions for the harm their vaccines caused in some of the children who were being
inoculated with these vaccines.
In addition to the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccines (MMR® and then MMR® II), Merck continued to
make the individual component vaccines, Attenuvax®, Mumpsvac®, and Meruvax® II until the mid-2000s. In 2010,
Merck announced that, in spite of customer demand for the individual vaccines, Merck would not resume
producing these vaccines.
from the pen of Paul G. King, PhD
In late 1986, comprehensive legislation was enacted that included the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) that was codified in 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 300aa-
34 and, in stages, became effective in 1987 and 1988.
This legislation was originally supposed to: a) provide a speedy, “no fault”, non-litigious,
fair compensation program for vaccine-injured children and their families, which, after initial
appropriations to start the program, was to be paid for by a tax on each disease component in each
dose of vaccine administered, and b) shield the vaccine makers from being easily sued.
In return for this protection, the vaccine manufacturers were supposed to make ever-safer
vaccines that caused less adverse reactions under strict governmental oversight that would not only
compel vaccine makers to make safer vaccines but punish them when they did not make vaccines as
safe as possible and reduce the risk of adverse reactions.
In actuality, all that the NVICP has done is shield the vaccine makers from being sued and,
through an increasingly slow, litigious, convoluted, and unfairly administered “compensation
program”, its administrative hearings have only compensated a very small percentage of those who
are damaged by adverse reactions to vaccines even though the program has been expanded to
include adults in many instances.
In 1987, Congress took the first action to decrease the fairness of the program and reduce the
financial burden on the federal government and the vaccine makers for any violation by repealing §
300aa-18, which indexed the compensation for both vaccine-related death and the vaccine
manufacturers’ fines to the rate of inflation.
Next, the NVICP program administrators started making it harder for children’s families to
collect for vaccine injuries by, in the 1990s, removing many of the indications from the “Vaccine
Injury Table” (see: Sec. 300aa-14. Vaccine Injury Table) without any independent scientifically
sound justification for removing them, which forced many more cases to be heard in a proceeding
that has become increasingly litigious and unfair4.
In the late 1980s, though it was clear that the diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (DTaP)
vaccines produced a lower rate of adverse reactions in children given them than the corresponding
diphtheria, tetanus, whole-cell pertussis (DTwP) vaccine, based on the data from Japan, which
introduced the DTaP vaccine in 1981 and saw a sharp decline in both diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-
vaccine-related adverse reactions and vaccine-related deaths, the DTwP vaccines were still licensed
and being given in the USA until 1997, when the vaccine makers finally switched to making the
This continual indication reduction process has gone beyond the absurd, removing the rotavirus vaccine indication
for intussusception even though all of the rotaviruses have been shown to cause intussusception in some vaccinated
children and two new rotaviruses (a 5-component bovine-human hybrid rotavirus vaccine [RotaTeq®] and an
attenuated human rotavirus vaccine [Rotarix®]) have been licensed and approved for mass use instead of amending
the table entry for the withdrawn RotaShield ® rhesus-monkey/human hybrid rotavirus vaccine and, most recently,
proposing to further alter the allowable time windows for the few remaining indications in the Vaccine Injury Table
(see: Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules / 55503 – 55507).
As one article correctly reports, “4) The old whole-cell version of DPT, given until about 1997 in the US, was bad. It
had a high rate of serious reactions, and these researchers calculated its effectiveness at only around 48%. But for the
previous 20 years, parents in the US were being told their children must have this vaccine. The real truth about a
After all, after 1986, the vaccine maker’s principal goad to make safer vaccines, the
monetary awards to successful plaintiffs in civil court cases seeking compensation for the injuries
caused by their vaccines, had been removed.
By comparison, the legal replacement for this goad was a weak and obviously ineffectual
federal governmental bureaucracy over which the vaccine makers obviously had significant
influence, and, given Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccines’ problems and the federal government’s
failure to take any substantial action against the vaccine or the vaccine maker, currently have even
b. The NVICP and Post-NVICP Vaccination Programs
With the passage of the NVICP legislation, the stream of vaccines from a growing number
of vaccine makers and/or their subsidiaries has increased to a veritable river.
Discarding any semblance of a need for cost-effectiveness in any mass vaccination program,
the Establishment has moved to not only add more doses of vaccines that were already marginally
cost-effective or not even cost effective but also to propagandize vaccination programs where the
underlying vaccine is not even truly effective or, in some cases, not even reasonably safe.
In addition, the Establishment, using a hired Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee as its
surrogate, redefined the allowable “placebo” in a vaccine clinical safety trial from only a pH-
buffered sterile isotonic saline solution to include: a) the entire vaccine formulation without the
active antigens, b) some other experimental vaccine or c) some other licensed vaccine, and
convinced the regulators to look at relative incidence of adverse events instead of their absolute
incidence in determining that a given vaccine is “reasonably safe”.
Together, these changes altered the basis for “safety” in phase 3 clinical trials and, by
increasing the adverse reactions in the “placebo” group, reduced the relative level of each adverse
reaction in the candidate vaccine compared to that adverse reaction in the “placebo” group.
Thus, when “three” children in the test group for Merck’s RotaTeq® vaccine in as clinical
trial (conducted in an overall population where sanitation is poor) developed intussusception and
“one” child in the control group developed intussusception, the RotaTeq vaccine was still
approvable and approved because the rate of intussusception was not significantly higher (on a
statistical basis) than the rate in the controls because of the small size of the groups in phase 3 trial
that Merck had conducted.
On this basis, the FDA licensed Merck’s genetically engineered, bovine-human-hybridized,
pentavalent, oral, live-virus rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq, even though this vaccine’s actual rate of
intussusception was 3 times that found in the control group.
Of course, after its approval in February of 2006, the pediatricians were told that, unlike the
previous “intussusception prone” rotavirus vaccine, Wyeth’s RotaShield®, which was withdrawn
shortly after its introduction in 1998, RotaTeq’s on-label use would not cause intussusception.
Even after being told that RotaTeq does not cause intussusception, the RotaTeq-related
intussusception signal in the voluntary Vaccine Adverse-Event Reporting System (VAERS) [where
particular vaccine being kind of dangerous and ineffective doesn’t come out until the pharmaceuticals decide they
have something better” (emphasis added). [See: http://www.exploringvaccines.com/?p=686]
typically less than 10% of actual adverse events for a given vaccine are reported] was even larger
after RotaTeq began to be used than the signal seen from the previous, now-withdrawn
“intussusception prone” RotaShield rotavirus vaccine and, in addition, RotaTeq-related cases of
Kawasaki’s disease were also reported6.
Additionally, after the NVICP was enacted, several patently unsafe or problematic vaccines
were licensed (e.g., LymeRX™ for Lyme disease and RotaShield® for rotavirus) and, after causing
horrendous or significant harm to those vaccinated with them from which the Establishment
profited, simply withdrawn from the market.
Thus, in addition to the pre-NVICP childhood vaccination programs for DTP, MMR and
Polio, we now have ineffective and/or less-than-effective vaccines and less-than-effective and/or
non-cost-effective mass vaccination programs for: a) late-childhood/adult diphtheria-pertussis-
tetanus (Tdap), b) childhood Haemophilus influenzae, type B (Hib), c) early childhood/adult
Hepatitis B (Hep B), d) childhood chickenpox, e) childhood/adult Hepatitis A (Hep A), f)
childhood/adult meningococcal meningitis (Sanofi Pasteur’s Menomune® and Menactra® vaccines),
g) Streptococcus pneumoniae (Wyeth’s Prevnar® and Prevnar ® 13[childhood] and Merck’s 23-
valent Pneumovax® [adult]), h) childhood rotavirus (Merck’s RotaTeq® and GlaxoSmithKline’s
(GSK’s Rotarix®), i) adult Shingles, and j) mid-childhood/young-adult human papilloma virus
(HPV; Merck’s Gardasil® and GSK’s Cevarix®) as well as k) ineffective annual vaccines and
annual vaccination programs for viral influenza in children and adults with “11” different vaccine
formulations currently being produced in “eight” manufacturing sites.
Moreover, not only does this require more and more vaccines to be given during childhood
but also, further unmasking the reality that vaccination is not immunization, to increase “coverage”
(in reality, market size and market penetration), adults are increasingly recommended to: a) get
“boosters” doses or “booster” vaccines, b) get periodic Tdap boosters in lieu of tetanus boosters,
and c) accept additional vaccine doses whenever there is a disease outbreak of a “vaccine
preventable” disease in their community regardless of their disease status.
In addition, no meaningful action has been taken against the vaccine makers for their failure
to expeditiously safen US vaccines by removing all preservatives and reducing the level of
adjuvants used or, where possible, eliminating the use of adjuvants altogether.
Instead, though there currently is a limit on the permitted level of aluminum adjuvant in
each vaccine7, the total level of aluminum adjuvants administered is being allowed to increase
without limit and the vaccine makers are increasingly demanding that they be permitted to use so-
called “oil-in-water” adjuvant systems even though, based on animal usage, these are known to be
more serious immune-system disruptors than the current long-used aluminum adjuvants whose
long-term safety for use in human vaccines has not been proven individually much less collectively.
Geier DA, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR RotaTeq vaccine adverse events and policy considerations. Med Sci
Monit. 2008 Mar; 14(3): PH9-PH16.
If the FDA’s proposed changes to 21 CFR § 610.15. Requirements for constituent material as published in the
Federal Register (see: Federal Register 2010 March 30; 75(60): 15639-15642) are adopted by the FDA, the FDA
will be able to waive all of the current limits, including those for preservatives and adjuvants as it sees fit even
though doing so is a subversion of the foundation upon which the regulation o all drugs is based – the applicable
regulations as set forth in 21 CFR Parts 600-680 are current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) minimums,
which every covered biological drug product must meet.
Finally, in spite of being sued for the failure of the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services (hereinafter, the Secretary) to make vaccines safer and reduce the risk of
adverse reactions, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a), by removing Thimerosal (49.55 %
mercury by weight) from the list of approved chemicals that can be used to manufacture vaccine,
the federal government has yet to ban the use of Thimerosal, a chemical that is known to induce
anaphylactic shock in some and mercury poison susceptible developing children, in the manufacture
c. The Number of Vaccine ‘Doses’ Reality
Increasingly the public is being told that they must submit to ever-expanding vaccination
programs for themselves and their children without regard for the risks to their own health or the
health of their children because complying is for the “greater good”.
For children up to 6 years of age, the recommended vaccination program reached a new high
in 2009 when, in addition to all of the 38 vaccines in the 2007 and 2008 vaccination programs, three
more doses of an 2009-A-H1N1 influenza vaccine was added for a nominal total of 41 doses of
Relative to 1983, the maximum relative level of mercury from possibly Thimerosal-
preserved vaccines (marked in red in Table 1 on the next page) was 1.6 times the nominal level of
exposure in 1983 and, roughly correcting for 10-or-more-times-larger effect of the prenatal
mercury dose, effectively up to 5-plus times the level of adverse impact relative to the vaccine
exposure to injected Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) in 1983.
d. The Continuing Use of Mercury (Thimerosal, 49.55% Mercury by Weight) Reality
When it comes to the issues surrounding the serious adverse health impacts of Thimerosal
(49.55% mercury by weight) on those vaccinated with vaccines containing it, the public is
continually propagandized with one of two misleading and inaccurate slogans:
1. “Mercury has been removed from all childhood vaccines” or
2. “All vaccines given to children, except some flu vaccines, no longer contain any added
The reality is that the Establishment, faced with a growing public outcry against the use of
Thimerosal as a preservative in childhood vaccines, did gradually reduce the level of Thimerosal in
the previously Thimerosal-preserved vaccines from nominally 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5-
mL dose to about 1 mcg of mercury per 0.5-mL dose (a reduced-Thimerosal or “trace”-Thimerosal
vaccine formulation) in the period from 2001 to 2005 and then starting in 2004, phased out the use
of Thimerosal in childhood vaccines.
However, to offset this reduction in mercury exposure from childhood vaccines (and the
serum Rho(D) products), the Establishment-controlled CDC began publishing recommendations in
April of 2002 that, during the annual flu season: a) pregnant women who would be in their second
and third trimesters and b) children 6 months to 23 months of age should get a flu shot (see
Prevention and Control of Influenza Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2002 April 12; 51(RR03): 1-31) at a time when all FDA-
approved influenza vaccines were Thimerosal-preserved vaccines.
Table 1: The CDC-Recommended Vaccine Schedule Comparison in Children
from Conception to 6 Years of Age, By Year (Recommended Month)
Year USA 1983 USA 2007 USA 2009
Before Birth — Influenza shot
Seasonal influenza &
Birth through 1 Year DTP (2) Hep B (birth) Hep B (birth)
OPV (2) Hep B (1) Hep B (1)
DTP (4) DTaP (2) DTaP (2)
OPV (4) Hib (2) Hib (2)
DTP (6) IPV (2) IPV (2)
[5 total] PCV (2) PCV (2)
[75 mcg Hg] Rotavirus (2) Rotavirus (2)
Hep B (4) Hep B (4)
DTaP (4) DTaP (4)
Hib (4) Hib (4)
IPV (4) IPV (4)
PCV (4) PCV (4)
Rotavirus (4) Rotavirus (4)
Hep B (6) Hep B (6)
DTaP (6) DTaP (6)
Hib (6) Hib (6)
IPV (6) IPV (6)
PCV (6) PCV (6)
Influenza (6) Seasonal Influenza (6)
Rotavirus (6) 2009-A-H1N1 (6)
Influenza (7) Rotavirus (6)
 Seasonal Influenza (7)
[25; 50 mcg Hg] 2009-A-H1N1 (7)
[50; 100 mcg Hg]
1 through 2 years MMR (15) Hib (12) Hib (12)
DTP (18) MMR (12) MMR (12)
OPV (18) Varicella (12) Varicella (12)
[3; 8] PCV (12) PCV (12)
[25; 100 mcg Hg] Hep A (12) Hep A (12)
DTaP (15) DTaP (15)
Hep A (18) Hep A (18)
Influenza (18) Influenza (18)
[8; 30] [8; 33]
[12.5; 62.5 Hg] [12.5; 112.5 Hg]
2 through 3 years Influenza (30 Influenza (30
Influenza (42) Influenza (42)
[2; 32] [2; 35]
[37.5; 100 mcg Hg] [37.5; 150 mcg Hg]
4 through 6 years DTP (48) MMR (48) MMR (48)
OPV (48) DTaP (48) DTaP (48)
[2; 10] IPV (48) IPV (48)
Varicella (48-60) Varicella (48-60)
[25; 125 mcg Hg] Influenza (54) Influenza (54)
Influenza (66) Influenza (66)
[6; 38] [6; 41]
[50; 150 mcg Hg] [50; 200 mcg Hg]
Vaccines and values in a red font are for vaccines that were, in 1983, or, in the 2000s, may still
The CDC made these recommendations in spite of the fact that the flu vaccines were
“Pregnancy Category C” vaccines with no proof:
a. Of non-teratogenicity for the fetus or reproductive safety for the pregnant women;
b. That the flu vaccines were not mutagenic or carcinogenic; or
c. That the flu vaccines were in-use effective in preventing those vaccinated from
There was, as is the case today, also no proof that flu vaccines, of any kind, are more in-use
effective than a placebo injection in preventing those children under 2 years of age who are
inoculated with a flu vaccine from contracting influenza.
As: 1) the level in the childhood vaccines continued to declined, 2) some doses of “trace”-
Thimerosal flu vaccines became available, and c) a live-virus flu vaccine was introduced, the CDC
recommendations continued to try to maintain the adverse effects of the average level of mercury
exposure to Thimerosal by: a) removing the restriction as to when, during pregnancy in the flu
season, flu shots could be given; b) increasing the upper limit on children to first 35 months, then to
59 months, then to 107 months, and, finally, to 18 years of age; and c) requiring children to get two
flu shots (a month apart) the first time they were vaccinated.
In 2009, the maximum level of Thimerosal exposure was doubled in utero and at 6 months
and 7 months when the CDC: a) added the “pandemic”, “swine flu”, 2009-A-H1N1 influenza to the
vaccines recommended to be given once to pregnant women and twice to children under 9 years of
age, and b) also designated pregnant women and young children as targeted “high risk” groups.
? Most of the doses of available influenza vaccines are Thimerosal-preserved doses,
? The CDC steadfastly refuses to even express a preference for pregnant women and
young children to get “no Thimerosal” influenza vaccine doses and
? The FDA continues to illegally license Thimerosal-preserved vaccines for which the
vaccine manufacturer has never proven that the level of Thimerosal used as a
preservative in said inactivated-influenza vaccines is “sufficiently nontoxic …” as
required by the applicable portion of the current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) safety regulations set forth in 21 CFR § 610.15(a),
pregnant women and children are continuing to be injected with toxic levels of mercury from
these adulterated drugs8
Moreover, given the CDC’s decision to increase the upper age limit for children to 18 years
and recommend that all adults be vaccinated annually, if Thimerosal-preserved flu shots continue to
be administered and some children and their mothers during pregnancy only get Thimerosal-
preserved flu shots, clearly the total dose of mercury exposure will continue to exceed the
maximum level that children born in the 1990s would have received from the three Thimerosal-
preserved childhood vaccines, DTaP, Hib, and Hep B, given to all children before 2001 and to some
Thimerosal-preserved vaccines for which the manufacturer has failed to meet the applicable clear CGMP minimum
“sufficiently nontoxic …” requirement for the vaccine dose set forth in 21 CFR § 610.15(a) are adulterated drugs
under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
from the pen of Paul G. King, PhD
children into the 2004 – 2005 timeframe, if no changes had been made to the Thimerosal-preserved
childhood vaccines or in the recommendations for the use of Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-
influenza vaccine formulations to inoculate pregnant women and developing children.
As long as the preceding realities continue to exist, any claim that there can be no link
between: a) the level of mercury exposure and b) the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, chronic
illnesses and abnormal behaviors is obviously a specious claim because the maximum level of
mercury has not dropped from the 2000 level but rather the maximum exposure level has increased.
At the same time, the levels of neurodevelopmental disorders, chronic medical conditions,
and abnormal behaviors have not dropped but rather these levels have also collectively increased.
Based on the preceding and other key facts (e.g., the several-fold excess level of males as
compared to females in the neurodevelopmental disorders and the fact that increases in these
disorders were noticed a couple of years after the 3-dose regimens for Thimerosal-preserved Hep B
and for Hib were implemented in the late 1980s in the USA and in the 2000s after similar program
changes were implemented in New Delhi, India9), this author knows that mercury exposure from
Thimerosal in vaccines and other drugs is the major causative factor in many, if not all, of the
epidemic-level increases in neurodevelopmental disorders, chronic medical conditions, and
4. “The Benefits Outweigh The Risks”
Pointing to our current increased life expectancies and ignoring their projected future
decline, the Establishment continually tells Americans that the benefits of each new vaccination
program outweigh the risks.
Unfortunately, there has been epidemic increases in many chronic diseases (e.g., asthma in
children from < 1 in 1,000 children in the 1970s to > 1 in 10 children in the 2000s) and the
morphing of previous chronic diseases only seen in adults (e.g., type 2 diabetes) into chronic
diseases seen in children to the point that, in 2006, more than 26 % of American children have one
or more chronic diseases (up from 12.8 % in 1994)10 that they most probably will have over their
Thus, the “greater good” for whom each of us is supposed to sacrifice ourselves and our
loved ones is, in actuality, the “greater good” for one or more segments of an Establishment that
feeds on us and grows ever stronger as more of us weaken and become chronically ill and/or
financially and physically drained trying to care for our chronically ill loved ones.
Worse, there is increasing evidence that those who are effectively in control of this
Establishment decided have, unconsciously or consciously, that they need to:
The reality of this linkage was recently strongly reinforced by the emergence of a similar pattern’s being observed
in a New Delhi, India nursery school after the New Delhi pediatricians began recommending the addition of 3-
doses each Thimerosal-preserved Hib and Hep B vaccination programs to the Indian government’s recommended
Thimerosal-preserved DTP vaccination program in 2000 and the worsening of the outcomes when these programs,
originally designed to finish the 9-shot vaccination series by the time the children are 6 months of age, were
shortened to be completed by 4.5 months of age and the incidence of neurodevelopmental dysfunction doubled.
Van Cleave J, Gortmaker SL, Perrin JM. Dynamics of Obesity and Chronic Health Conditions Among Children
and Youth. JAMA 2010 February 17; 303(7): 623-630.
? Increase the harm,
? Further drain our fiscal and physical strength, and
? Reduce our numbers and our life expectancy, while feeding on our fiscal and physical
To that end, increasingly expensive vaccines (e.g., Merck’s Gardasil and GSK’s Cervarix,
where the private-sector list price for each dose is than US $125.0011) that: a) are less-and-less
curative and/or effective and b) seem to be more-and-more harmful are being approved and
delivered to the public as preventives for conditions whose incidence, in many instances, may have
been caused or aggravated by other vaccines, drugs, processed and genetically altered foods, and
chemicals that the Establishment markets to the public as “safe” without any real proofs of the
short-term and, more importantly, true long-term safety for any of these Establishment products.
To sell these less-than-effective, less-than-proven-safe, and much-more-expensive vaccines,
the Establishment continually reminds the public of the horrors of the deaths from “vaccine-
preventable disease” for certain highly contagious and lethal diseases from the era before vaccines
(e.g., smallpox, polio and measles), diseases that have disappeared (e.g., smallpox) or only occur at
low levels (e.g., measles) in the USA today, while ignoring or minimizing the following critical
? Clean water, sanitation, basic food safety, improved housing, and antibiotics did
more to reduce the level of the disease-related injuries and fatalities from the highly
contagious and lethal diseases than the vaccines for them have done,
? Without any vaccine, scarlet fever, a highly contagious and lethal disease, has
? Many of today’s vaccines are for diseases that: a) are not highly contagious (e.g.,
influenza and hepatitis B) or b) do not have any significant mortality levels (e.g.,
chickenpox, mumps, rubella, and tetanus).
? The obviously vaccine-related increases in chronic diseases, especially chronic
diseases that have a significant autoimmune component, like asthma, multiple
sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, and diabetes, to name a few, as well as
epidemic increases in abnormal childhood neurodevelopment, abnormal behaviors,
other developmental abnormalities and bowel disorders.
In addition, when we were first being sold on mass vaccination programs as a means to
protect the health of the public, we were told that a mass vaccination program for any vaccine
depended on the vaccine’s being effective and the mass vaccination program’s being cost effective.
Consider the “chickenpox” vaccination program where the vaccine, Merck’s Varivax®, is a
live-virus vaccine that infects every one inoculated with it with a certain strain, the Oka/Merck
strain, of herpes varicella zoster (HVZ) – a vaccine strain that is not effective in preventing
CDC Vaccine Price List (Prices last reviewed/updated: September 24, 2010): Merck’s HPV-Quadrivalent (Types 6,
11, 16 and 18) Recombinant Vaccine, Gardasil, US$ 130.27/dose; GSK’s HPV-Bivalent (Types 16 and 18)
Recombinant Vaccine, Cervarix, $ 128.75/dose, where both process include a US$ 0.75 excise tax nominally
collected for the NVICP in 10-dose vials: $1302.70 plus shipping and handling for each Gardasil vial and $1287.50
vial. The commercial list price costs of the two 3-dose series are US$ 390.81 and US$ 386.25, respectively.
from the pen of Paul G. King, PhD
everyone vaccinated, or even all of those with a “sufficient” vaccine-strain antibody titer level, from
also being infected by the “native”/“wild” strains of HVZ circulating in the USA.
When the initial licensing for this vaccine was sought in the 1990s, the justification for
licensing a chickenpox vaccine for a normally mild and innocuous childhood disease was that
vaccination was marginally cost-effectiveness on a societal productivity-loss basis under the
presumptions that: a) one dose of vaccine would provide lifetime protection for most young
children inoculated with the vaccine and b) there would be no serious adverse reactions to being
inoculated with the vaccine.
Yet, today, two doses of Varivax® are the minimum recommended for all children, and older
adults are being recommended to receive a dose of Merck’s Zostavax®, a higher-concentration Oka-
strain HVZ vaccine to “prevent” a recurrence of the HVZ (native or vaccine-strain) with which they
have been infected.
Without even considering the costs to treat those who have severe adverse reactions to the
Varivax or Zostavax vaccines, a conservative 2009 cost analysis placed the US excess shingles’
cases’ costs, caused by the US childhood chickenpox vaccination program, at US$ 700 million
Clearly, the Establishment has discarded the requirements for vaccine effectiveness and
In their place, Establishment profitability seems to have: a) overruled the federal
government’s concern for public’s fiscal and physical health and b) trumped the significant costs
from the collective long-term vaccination-induced physical harm, including maiming and death,
that some of those who are vaccinated suffer12 when the serious adverse effects caused by the initial
vaccine, Varivax® (which was claimed to cause no serious adverse effects in the FDA-
licensing/approval process), Merck’s MMR-Varicella vaccine, ProQuad® (which has a significantly
higher risk of serious adverse effects), and Merck’s shingles HVZ vaccine, Zostavax®, are factored
Currently, the Establishment is engaged in introducing vaccines, like Merck’s Gardasil® and
GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix®, with no proof of long-term effectiveness and self-generated, self-
serving “cost effectiveness”, which clearly ignore the costs to those who have had, are having and
will have serious adverse reactions
Furthermore, after their approval, the CDC immediately recommended mass vaccination
programs for these vaccines with almost no in-use proof of safety and no in-use proof of
effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer.
Worse, both the CDC and the FDA seem almost total indifferent to the hundreds of reported
vaccine-induced injuries as well as the tens of vaccine-linked deaths, which, quite predictably, the
Establishment attributes to mere coincidence.
In addition, the Establishment has introduced vaccines, like the current rotavirus vaccines,
that have clearly negative US cost-effectiveness (where the cost of the vaccination program far
Tellingly, before Merck’s Gardasil® HPV vaccine was introduced, Varivax consistently had the highest incidence
of adverse-event reports in the VAERS database in the 1990s and early 2000s.
exceeds the costs of the background level of rotavirus in the USA) and, for Merck’s genetically
engineered RotaTeq®, have clearly increased US rotavirus disease risk in those children and adults
who were previously “immune” to the native human rotavirus strains to which they have been
exposed during their childhood but are not protected from being infected by the genetically
engineered bovine-human hybridized viruses in Rotateq.
Moreover, the standards for licensing a vaccine in the USA have been reduced from the
vaccine: a) must be truly effective in preventing the disease in most of those who have been
vaccinated and b) must reduce the harm from the disease in those who are vaccinated and still
contract the disease as well as c) reduce the transmission of the disease to:
? In the case of the rotavirus vaccines, for the limited and biased clinical trials
conducted, the vaccines were approved based on a finding that the risk of the serious
harm caused by the vaccines is not statistically higher than the risk of harm caused
by the natural disease in the control population used in the phase-3 clinical trials.
? In the case of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, the vaccines were
approved based on claims that the vaccines may, in this instance, prevent some
vaccine-associated cervical cancers in some of the vaccinated women three to five
decades after they complete the initial 3-dose vaccination schedule, even though:
a. There is no proof that HPV infection causes cervical cancer — only proof that
HPV infection levels are associated with cervical cancer,
b. The “efficacy” data indicates a post-vaccination loss of efficacy in less than a
c. The strains of HPV in either vaccine (HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 in Gardasil
and types 16 and 18) are not even the major strains of the disease prevalent in
the USA – in fact the type 11 strain is almost non-existent (“0.1%”) in the US
d. The approvals are not questioned when the levels of adverse-event reports,
including serious maiming and death, currently far exceeds the level of the
other vaccines even though only a small percentage of the eligible population is
being vaccinated with these vaccines while the level of vaccination in most of
Dunne EF, Unger ER, Sternberg M, McQuillan G, Swan DC, Patel SS, Markowitz LE. Prevalence of HPV
Infection Among Females in the United States. JAMA. 2007 February 28; 297(8): 813-819.
The most common HPV types detected were HPV-62 (3.3%; 95% CI, 2.2%-5.1%) and HPV-84 (3.3%; 95% CI, 2.2%-
5.1%), HPV-53 (2.8%; 95% CI, 2.1%-3.7%), and HPV-89 (2.4%; 95% CI, 1.4%-4.3%) and HPV-61 (2.4%; 95% CI,
1.6%-3.8%) (FIGURE 2). HPV-16 was detected in 1.5% (95% CI, 0.9%-2.6%) of females aged 14 to 59 years. There
was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of HPV-16 and the 13 more commonly detected types, except
for HPV-84 and HPV-62. HPV-6 was detected in 1.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.3%), HPV-11 in 0.1% (95% CI, 0.0 %-0.3%;
relative SE_30%), and HPV-18 in 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.5%) of female participants. Most participants infected with
HPV (60.1%) had only 1 HPV type detected (95% CI, 53.2%-67.9%); however, 23.9% had 2 types (95% CI, 18.3%-
31.3%) and 16% had 3 or more types detected (95% CI, 12.0%-21.2%). Overall, HPV types 6, 11, 16, or 18 were
detected in 3.4% of the study participants, corresponding with 3.1 million females with prevalent infection with HPV
types included in the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. Few participants (0.10%) had both HPV types 16 and 18 and none had
all 4 HPV vaccine types. At least 1 of these 4 HPV types was detected in 6.2% (95% CI, 3.8%-10.3%) of females aged
14 to 19 years.”
… Our data indicate that the burden of prevalent HPV infection among women was higher than previous estimates.
However, the prevalence of HPV vaccine types was relatively low”. [Emphasis added.]
the other vaccine programs that generate significant levels of serious adverse
events generally exceed 75 % of the population segments covered by the
5. “The Establishment’s Efforts To Increase Their Protection From Civil Lawsuits Are
Furthermore, through an appeal in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth being heard by the US Supreme
Court this Fall, the vaccine makers and the rest of the Establishment are essentially attempting to
have the Supreme Court rule that the 7th Amendment14 of the Constitution of the United States of
America, an integral part of the “Bill of Rights” reserved to the people of the United States of
America, does not apply to those who have suffered, or are the guardians of those who have
suffered, a vaccine-induced injury.
The artifice being used to carry this argument is that 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22. Standards of
responsibility is an issue that can be decided once, and for all, by the judiciary, outside of a civil
trial by jury on the facts of each case.
This argument is being advanced even though, under the NVICP, the vaccine maker’s lack
of liability under § 300aa-22 is supposed to be the issue decided in the first phase of any vaccine-
related civil jury trial.
That such liability decisions belong to the trial jury is clearly set forth in § 300aa-23. Trial,
which at § 300aa-23(b), states:
The first stage of such a civil action shall be held to determine if a vaccine
manufacturer is liable under section 300aa-22 of this title”. [Emphasis added.]
Moreover, the Establishment’s arguments knowingly ignore § 300aa-22(b) with respect
“warnings”, in general, and § 300aa-22(b)(2), which states:
“For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper
directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all
material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section 262 of this title (including regulations issued
under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and related to vaccine-related injury
or death for which the civil action was brought unless the plaintiff shows – …”
? As the putative causative DTP vaccine in question is a Thimerosal-preserved vaccine
given to the child and
? The vaccine manufacturers have admitted knowingly failing to comply with Title 21
of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as set forth in section 610.15(a) (21
CFR § 610.15(a)), which requires the level of preservative must be proven to be
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law”.
“sufficiently nontoxic so that the amount present in the recommended dose of the
product will not be toxic to the recipient”, in testimony given before a Congressional
committee which investigated the vaccine makers and the US Food and Drug
Administration’ actions from 1999 and which subsequently published a formal
Congressional report, “Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks” in 200315
and the requirement in question is a material requirement under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] as well as a safety regulation issued
under the provisions in “section 262 of this title”16 [emphasis added],
the Wyeth defendant is clearly guilty of failing to comply “in all material respects with all
requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section
262 of this title (including regulations issued under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and
related to vaccine-related injury or death for which the civil action was brought”.
Moreover, recognizing defendant Wyeth’s knowing and intentional failure to comply with
the black letter law, the US Supreme Court should, when it hears the case this Fall: a) find for the
Bruesewitz plaintiffs and b) take whatever actions needed to ensure that the Bruesewitz plaintiffs
are awarded appropriate punitive damages for defendant Wyeth’s knowing and willful failure to
comply with 21 CFR § 610.15(a) for the preservative Thimerosal in the vaccine that caused the
harm to the Bruesewitz child.
However, given the Establishment’s denial of reality of vaccine-induced mercury toxicity in
susceptible children, like the Bruesewitz child, who were, and are still being, given vaccines
preserved with Thimerosal (49.55% mercury by weight) and the power that the Establishment
wields, the people will be lucky if the US Supreme Court finds for the Bruesewitz plaintiffs.
Finally, should the US Supreme Court find for Wyeth, then, the people will most assuredly
know that both the Establishment and the US Supreme Court are knowingly severing those who
bring vaccine cases against the vaccine manufacturers in the legal manner provided by NVICP from
the right to a civil jury trial for damages that is supposedly guaranteed by the 7th Amendment to the
Constitution of the USA.
6. “The ‘Life Saving’ Annual Influenza Vaccination Program”
Factually, there is no scientific proof that the influenza vaccine prevents even most (> 50%)
of those who are “vaccinated” with an influenza vaccine from contracting and spreading influenza
during the “flu season” – none whatsoever (see, for example, Geier DA, King PG, Geier MR.
Influenza Vaccine: Review of Effectiveness of the U.S. Immunization Program, and Policy
Considerations. J. Am. Physicians and Surgeons 2006 Fall; 11: 69-74 [the only US-population-
See Finding 3, “3. Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal, (an ethylmercury compound used in vaccines), have never
conducted adequate testing on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety
testing on thimerosal and ethylmercury compounds” (page 6), in May 2003, Subcommittee on Human Rights &
Wellness of the Government Reform Committee, US House of Representatives (Chairman Dan Burton – following
a 3 year congressional investigation), “Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks” pgs 1-80 and, in
abbreviated form, published in the Extended Congressional Record: Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, “Mercury in Medicine Report,” Washington,
DC, as published in the Congressional Record, pgs. E1011-E1030, May 21, 2003
Here, “this title” is “TITLE 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE” of the United States Code.
wide retrospective of in-use effectiveness evaluation – not model – for the influenza vaccination
programs in the USA for the years 1979 through 2001]); and other unbiased independent studies as
well as the independent reviews of the published studies (see, for example: Jefferson T, Di
Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing
influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Art. No.:
CD001269), which clearly show that the inoculation of populations with influenza vaccines, both
inactivated- and, more recently, live-virus, is not effective in preventing those who are inoculated
from getting “influenza” during the “flu season”.
Furthermore, there is some evidence that getting an influenza inoculation in one year may
increase the inoculated individual’s risk of contracting an influenza infection in a subsequent year
Additionally, a recent double-blind clinical trial study found that supplementation with
vitamin D-3 was much more effective in preventing influenza-type-A infections than influenza
vaccination (see: Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, Kurihara M, Wada Y, Ida H. Randomized
trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin
Nutr. 2010 May; 91(5): 1255-1260. Epub 2010 Mar 10. PMID: 20219962).
Finally, as is usually the case, Establishment’s fear mongering and propagandizing carefully
hides the fact that influenza is not a highly contagious disease (see: Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland
CF, Scragg R, Giovannucci E. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virol J. 2008 Feb 25; 5: 29 [Note:
Among the issues this electronically published review article addresses is the absence of any valid value for the sick-to-well infectivity for human influenza in spite of numerous attempts to determine even a valid estimate, which clearly establishes that influenza is not highly infective.]).
Thus, the Establishment is recommending mandates for various groups of people, and the
State of New Jersey is currently mandating, a non-effective vaccination program for a disease that is
not highly contagious on the grounds that, to say the least, this less-than-scientifically-sound, non-
effective prophylactic treatment, influenza vaccination, will somehow protect those who submit to it
from spreading a disease that it does not prevent them from contracting, and, when those inoculated
get the live-virus vaccine, a disease with which those receiving it not only are directly infected by
three strains of live viral influenza but have also been shown to shed the live virus for at least 21
days after being inoculated with said live-virus vaccine.
Furthermore, in spite of an ever-increasing body of evidence that vitamin D-3
supplementation is a more effective preventive for type “A” influenza than any influenza vaccine,
this Establishment continues to ignoring this proven and highly effective prophylactic use of
vitamin D-3, which protects all against contracting all strains of type “A” human influenza, instead
of suboptimal protection from getting the two (2) type A strains of flu in the flu vaccine.
Obviously, the Establishment’s recommendations and actions are not grounded in sound
science nor based on public health concerns; they are clearly driven by other imperatives.
7. “Medical Mandates Are Required For The ‘Greater Good’”
Whenever this author hears any group or zealot, including any vaccine apologist,
recommending that any person should surrender his or her right to make his or her own informed
medical decisions to some “higher authority” (be it employer, state or nation) “for the greater
good”, this commenter knows that the group or person advocating for such is a medical fascist17
who is seeking to take away our personal freedom to make medical choices for ourselves and those
for whom we are responsible and who is advocating for a “religious cult”, the cult of the “public
health” vaccinationists, who seek to mandate that all must sacrifice or risk sacrificing some aspect
of their own or their children’s health on the vaccine altar “for the greater good” – the good of the
Establishment – of which the group or individual demanding the surrender of the rights to informed
choice and consent is a well-paid member, who depends on promoting these sacrifices for his or her
status, position, and/or livelihood.
8. “Vaccines, the Safest of Prophylactic Healthcare Measures”
We are repeatedly sold the myth that “vaccines are the safest disease-preventive medicines”,
when the truth is that, as a group, they are the least safe of disease-preventive medicines (see: Neil
Z. Miller’s Vaccine Safety Manual For Concerned Families and Health Practitioners, 2nd
edition (2010), ISBN 978-188121737-4) and the only class of prophylactic medicines for which
there are no long-term safety studies and, increasingly, not true-placebo-controlled short-term large-
scale safety studies (in a vaccinated versus totally unvaccinated [using sterile isotonic pH-balanced
saline for the controls] with > 50,000 in each arm of the study).
In addition, instead of proof of effectiveness and long-term (lifetime [> 50-year protection])
effectiveness, we are given antibody-titer-based measures of claimed efficacy of limited duration
(typically, 10 years or less) for “most vaccines” after typically 2 to 5 inoculations for most
(typically, > 60%) of those who are initially inoculated multiple times, with a carefully concealed
reality that each such inoculation campaign kills a few18 who are inoculated and harms some
additional multiple of that number each year to varying degrees.
9. “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Or Any Other Chronic Medical Condition”
How much longer will Americans tolerate the increasingly obvious lie that the
Establishment’s vaccination programs are not a causal factor in ‘Autism’ and other chronic
childhood medical conditions that once were rare (< 1 to 2 instances in every 10,000 children) but
are now at epidemic levels (> 1 instance in every 10 to 1,000 children)?
How much longer will the American public continue to tolerate the epidemics of chronic
diseases; and epidemic rates of chronic disease that, for asthma, now exceed 10 % of our children
and, in the aggregate, have brought us to a nation where, in 2006, more than 25%19 of our children
have at least one chronic lifetime medical condition so that the Establishment may continue to grow
Defined here as any member of medical community who favors dictatorial medicine where all medical decisions
are under the control of the “medical police” and “medical courts”; and the individual has no rights to make his or
her own informed medical decisions without fear of any retribution, ostracism or oppression.
Based on the reality that vaccination accounts for most of our excess infant mortality rate over that infant mortality
rate in Japan in the first year of life, this “few” deaths per vaccination collectively translates to about 2 per 1,000
live births or about 8,000 – 9,000 newborn babies in the USA each year.
“The rate of chronic health conditions among children in the United States increased from 12.8% in 1994 to 26.6%
in 2006”. [http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/717030?sssdmh=dm1.591574&src=nldne&uac=140083MY] [Note: 26.8/12.8 is about a
factor of 2.1 – without considering the increase in population of children by about 50% – making the population
percentage increase not 210 % but rather 300+ %.]
and profit at the expense of the increasing damage to the fiscal and physical health of ourselves and
How much longer will the American public be blinded by the propaganda spewed forth
daily by these servants of greed who have been and are knowingly sacrificing our health and
prosperity so that the Establishment they serve may continue to grow in size and profit while our
fiscal and physical health is stolen from us?
Even though this commenter cannot answer for those who read these questions, his past and
on-going efforts clearly point out the reality that he has lost his tolerance for the status quo and, with
eyes wide open, he is seeking to open the eyes of the public to the preceding realities and to march
with that informed and enlightened public to change the USA, not for the “greater good”, but rather
for a return to a system of laws in which the rights of every competent citizen are respected and
everyone has the freedom to freely choose, or reject, all prophylactic vaccination programs without
any penalty, stigma, or recriminations from those who do not share the same views.
In addition, this commenter is: 1) seeking to change the laws protecting the Establishment’s
vaccine purveyors from being held directly accountable for the harm their vaccine products cause
and the lack of safety and/or appropriate effectiveness of many of their vaccine products and 2)
hoping that, after reading this commentary, those who ‘get it’ will join with this commenter in
demanding: a) direct vaccine purveyor accountability and b) the absolute right to choose which, if
any, vaccination programs and when, if ever, the vaccines chosen should be administered – or,
simply, “opt in” vaccination laws in every State, which would repeal the current mandates and
eliminate any and all need for an exemption of any type from any prophylactic or other vaccination
About Paul G. King, PhD
Paul G. King, PhD Analytical Chemist, is a scientist who has studied both vaccines and
vaccination programs intensively for more than a decade and has sorted out the underlying science
to the extent that he could find such from all of the published information available from those with
differing views about vaccination and vaccination programs.
If any, after reading this article, any reader finds any significant error for which there is
unbiased science that clearly supports your alternative views, then, by all means, send your
alternative view or views and their supporting documentation to me through firstname.lastname@example.org and, if
your studies are truly unbiased, this author will be glad to: a) modify his views accordingly and b)
publish an updated article. If you find areas where the text has grammatical, spelling or word-
usage errors, please let the author know so that he may appropriately correct them and published a
revised version of this article.
For additional information about Dr. King and his interests, the reader can visit his
personal web site, http://www.dr-king.com/.
Donate to Support Court Case Seeking to Bar FDA from Releasing Untested Swine Flu Vaccines with Squalene: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 Tax deductible donations ending in numeral “6” are earmarked for legal case. Don’t forget to make a second recurring donation to support Natural Solutions Foundation. We are 100% supporter supported and your help makes our work possible.
The police power of the state is a well established principle in the US Constitution. What happens when it is used to decide how to make the population healthier, or better, or smarter, or more desirable?
Fascism, both medical and non medical, is the inevitable result.
Many people do not know that the formal concept of Eugenics originated in the US with Stanford University professor Frances Galton, PhD and that it was enthusiastically championed by the select, unelected “masters” like John D. Rockefeller and the Harriman family. So successful were they in selling their loathsome idea that the perfection and purification of the human species could – and should – be accomplished at the discretion of the rulers of humanity, starting, of course, with themselves, that they sold the idea to numerous US State legislatures. The concept was upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States and then, once firmly established through legislation and practice, the idea was exported to Germany preceding the National Socialists. From there, it was enthusiastically embraced by the Nazis who modeled their eugenics laws and programs on the US ones, as the article below details.
Rockefeller set up and funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (clearly long before the Nazis seized power) which was the “scientific” font of this burgeoning atrocity.
The results are history. Or are they?
Perhaps they are part of the current world view of the ruling elite.
The article which follows is of great importance and, although lengthy, is well work a careful read. The information about deadly and abortion-inducing vaccines is especially timely. Please share it with full attribution.
Equally important, please visit www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and take the important action steps related to making sure that you have the right to say NO to a squalene laced vaccine containing one million times more squalene than the devastating Vaccine A given to Gulf War Vets which made at least 25% of them devastatingly ill for the rest of their foreshortened lives.
You read that right. One Million Time More Squalene.
Please visit http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 to make two tax deductible recurring donations: one, ending in the numeral “6” which will identify it as earmarked for the legal fund to bring a Court Case demanding a Stay to the FDA’s intended release of weaponized Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccines which have not had any safety testing on them completed. There are significant expenses with a Federal Court Case and we need your help in bringing this urgent request for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order before the appropriate Court THIS WEEK. The second donation is to keep the Natural Solutions Foundation operating and serving you. We are 100% supporter supported and your donations are our lifeblood.
Here is the article. Read, enjoy, share, take action, donate.
The history of public health efforts in the United States in many ways is a story of great accomplishment. In the 19th century, public health officials constructed urban water and sanitation systems to protect the public against filth. With the discovery of germs, they turned their attention to transmissible diseases and instituted measures to inspect and quarantine ships. The original name of the U. S. Public Health Service, in fact, was the “Marine Hospital Service.” (It became the Public Health Service in 1912.) In the late 19th century and early 20th century, public health authorities began mass inoculation programs. This culminated in the spectacular success of polio vaccination in the early 1950s.
Vaccinations were not universally applauded in the early 20th century, however, and one resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Henning Jacobson, sued the state public health department after he was fined $5 for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox, and then jailed when he refused to pay the fine. The case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts,1 went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Not only was this the first Supreme Court decision regarding the government’s public health powers but it still stands as the leading case acknowledging the scope of these powers.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Harlan, analogizes the public health power of the state to the power to defend itself against foreign attack, including requiring citizens to take up arms and risk “the chance of being shot down.” Harlan emphasizes that the common good takes precedence over the “wishes or convenience of the few.” The only constraints on the exercise of this broad public health power are that it may not be either “arbitrary or unreasonable” or “cruel and inhuman.” Accordingly, the opinion states that a person can refuse to be vaccinated if doing so “would seriously impair his health, or probably cause his death.” In the Court’s judgment, Henning Jacobson’s objection that he had had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child did not meet that test. (Note that the grant of an exception to immunization would not mean that a potentially infected individual would be allowed to circulate freely among the population, since the public health authorities could quarantine the person indefinitely.)
The AIDS Crisis
The AIDS epidemic posed some difficult challenges for public health officials. This was not the first time that they had confronted a sexually transmitted disease (STD). In the early 20th century, the STD of concern was syphilis and the government’s actions were vigorous. During World War I, for example, 20,000 women believed to be at risk for spreading the disease (hence, the reason they were called “spreaders”) were incarcerated in government camps. In the mid-1930s, Surgeon General Thomas Parran developed the techniques of mandatory reporting of infected persons, partner notification and contact tracing that became staples of the public health armamentarium. By the end of World War II, all states required syphilis testing before a couple could obtain a marriage license. Most states repealed these laws in the 1980s but not before many people suffered severe anguish as a result of the 25% false positive rate of the test then in use.
In the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, even more draconian public health measures were proposed. In 1985, the legislatures of Colorado, Florida and Texas considered bills to ban HIV positive individuals from working as food handlers. Rev. Jerry Falwell called for all prostitutes to be placed in quarantine and a bill to that effect was introduced in the Colorado legislature. William F. Buckley called for universal HIV screening. In 1987, Illinois began requiring HIV testing for marriage licenses. (By the end of 1988, 159,000 people had been tested at a cost of $5.6 million. A total of 23 cases were detected.) Also in 1987, then-Vice President George Bush urged the nation to mandate universal HIV screening.
These calls for mandatory action were resisted by AIDS activists and some physicians. Quarantining individuals who engaged in high risk activities was deemed imprudent because it was known that a person could be infected with the HIV virus yet yield a negative test result because of a delay in seroconversion (the ability to detect antibodies to the virus in the blood). Thus, a person who was quarantined would have no way of proving that he or she was uninfected; quarantine, in effect, would have to be for life. The same seroconversion phenomenon bedeviled calls for mandatory testing of patients and prisoners after health care workers, law enforcement personnel or firefighters suffered accidental exposures. This led to an emphasis instead on universal precautions. Furthermore, the stigma attached to AIDS and the discrimination faced by those infected or at risk persuaded health policymakers that, in contrast to the use of mandatory reporting, partner notification and contact tracing that had been employed in the fight against syphilis in the 1930s, more people would obtain HIV testing if the tests were available on a voluntary, anonymous basis.
Yet many in the public health community chafed at anonymous testing, believing that it placed the public at unnecessary risk by tying the hands of public health officials when it came to tracking and preventing the spread of the disease. There were repeated calls to return to the old mandatory public health style of intervention. Gradually, this viewpoint gained support. In 1992, North Carolina public health officials called a halt to anonymous HIV testing, an action that was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in a case called ACT-UP Triangle v. Commissioner for Health Services.2 As of now, anonymous testing is banned in Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.
What tipped the balance against voluntary, anonymous testing was the development of drug treatment. The FDA approved AZT in 1987, followed by protease inhibitors in 1995. Once these drugs became available, the chilling effect of the stigma or discrimination associated with identifiable reporting of positive HIV test results was deemed to be negated by an individual’s desire to be tested so that treatment could commence.
An indication of how far the nation has gone toward a mandatory public health model in its response to AIDS is the September, 2006, recommendation by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that identifiable, reportable HIV tests be made a part of “routine” medical testing. The CDC states that patients should be notified that they were about to be tested for HIV and given an opportunity to decline, but the CDC also states that physicians should not have to obtain specific informed consent for the testing. At the same time, the CDC did not specific what would count as adequate notice. Conceivably, it might be sufficient if HIV testing were merely listed among the series of other tests on a laboratory order form.
Still, the nation seems to have weathered the AIDS epidemic relatively successfully, without seriously weakening the public health system. The question is whether we will be as fortunate in responding to new challenges, especially the challenges posed by our growing knowledge of genetics and by the War on Terror. In order to understand exactly what is at stake, we need to revisit some less successful public health campaigns of the past.
Sickle Cell Screening
After a rapid, accurate genetic test for the sickle cell mutation was developed, a number of states mandated population screening. In some states, the screening was limited to African-Americans, who comprise about 8 to 10% of those who carry the mutation for the disease. In other states, testing was a prerequisite for public schooling. There was inadequate public education about the significance of a positive test ? result. Many who were merely carriers of the autosomal recessive gene thought that they actually had the disease. People who were homozygous for the mutation did not understand that the severity of the disease varied substantially from one individual to another. Eventually, most of the mandatory screening laws were repealed but not before many people suffered emotional distress and discrimination by insurers and employers.
And in case you thought that winning a Nobel prize for science equips you to make good public health policy, Linus Pauling, who did pioneering work in the late 1940s on the molecular basis for sickle cell disease, not only fully supported the screening laws but, in 1968, urged that every person who was revealed to be a carrier of the sickle cell trait should have an “S” tattooed on their foreheads so that they could avoid reproducing with another carrier.
The U.S. Public Health Service Experiment at Tuskegee
In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began a study of 410 African-American syphilitic men in rural Alabama. The purpose of the study was to follow the course of the untreated disease. Subjects were not informed what was wrong with them, and they were not treated, even in the 1950s after penicillin was recognized as standard, effective therapy. In fact, U.S. public health officials actively discouraged treatment by local physicians, the state health department and the army. Subjects were offered a $50 burial subsidy to stay in the study and in 1958 each survivor was given $25 and a certificate of appreciation.
The first paper describing the study appeared in the medical literature in 1936 and reports continued to be published through the 1960s. In 1969, a committee of the CDC reviewed the experiment and authorized it to continue. By the time the press exposed the study in 1972 and it was halted, only 74 men remained alive.
The year 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the first eugenic involuntary sterilization law in history. It may come as a surprise that this law was not passed by the Nazis but by the State of Indiana.
The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In 1904, he defined it as “[t]he science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.” Upon receiving a large gift from the wife of railroad magnate E. H. Harriman, a biology professor named Charles Davenport in 1905 established an organization called the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. (Ironically, this is now a center for genetic research and the home of Dr. James Watson, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA.) In 1907, as mentioned above, the Indiana legislature authorized the compulsory sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” residing in a state institution, provided that a panel of one physician and two surgeons agreed that there was “no probability of improvement” and that it was “inadvisable” for the inmate to procreate.
Eugenics legislation really took off after Davenport hired an Iowa high school teacher by the name of Harry Loughlin to direct the Eugenics Record Office. Loughlin was a tireless advocate of eugenics and, by 1913, 14 states operated active compulsory sterilization programs. Supporters of these programs included many prominent progressives and social reformers. Between 1913 and 1918, a number of the state laws were held unconstitutional on various grounds (including lack of equal protection because they only applied to institutionalized persons; lack of adequate procedural safeguards; and cruel and unusual punishment). In response, Loughlin drafted a new model sterilization law.
One of the states that adopted the new language was Virginia. Under the provisions of the Virginia law, the state sterilized a woman named Carry Buck, who was institutionalized in the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, and she then filed a lawsuit ostensibly to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. As legal historian Paul Lombardo discovered, the suit was a sham. Buck was given virtually no effective legal representation; her lawyer, as well as her supporting witnesses, had gotten together with the state officials to concoct the suit in order to convince the courts to uphold the new model law.
Like the earlier Jacobson case, the case of Buck v. Bell also made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and, in 1927, Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most respected jurists in American history, upheld the law with the now infamous words:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Decades later, Lombardo’s research showed that Buck had been institutionalized when she got pregnant after she had been raped by the nephew of the foster family she had been living with. Neither she, nor her mother or child, were “feeble-minded.”
With the constitutional door held open by the Court in Buck, 28 states enacted compulsory sterilization laws by 1931. Georgia passed the last sterilization law in the U.S. in 1937. The number of reported sterilizations in California rose from 322 in 1925 to 2,362 over the course of 1928 and 1929. Nationally, approximately 3,000 operations were reported annually prior to World War II. Many sterilizations that occurred were not reported.
Eugenic sterilization is a form of “negative” eugenics, in that it seeks to prevent the birth of genetically undesirable individuals. The eugenics movement also fostered positive eugenics. During the 1920s, state fairs awarded prizes to “fitter families” and “better babies” alongside champion farm animals. An organization called the Pioneer Fund offered military pilots and crews with three children the equivalent of $45,000 if they fathered a fourth.
The allure of eugenics was apparent to a former German army corporal who read about Loughlin’s model law in 1924 while he was in jail writing a book called Mein Kampf. When the Nazis came to power, the first piece of legislation they enacted was a sterilization law modeled on the Virginia statute. (Loughlin was so revered by the Nazis that the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg gave him an honorary degree in 1934.) By 1935, over 150,000 people had been sterilized under the German law, including a number of deaf persons who volunteered as a show of support for the Fatherland. Gradually the scope of the law was broadened into a tool of genocide. The Germans also vigorously pursued positive eugenics, as illustrated by the Lebensborn program, in which selected Aryan women were bred with members of the SS and the resulting offspring raised in state-approved foster families.
Although the revelations of Nazi atrocities chilled involuntary sterilization in the U.S. after the war, the practice did not completely disappear. In 1958, 574 operations were performed in Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. By the time its law was finally repealed in 1974, Virginia had sterilized over 8,000. In April 2007, a woman who was sterilized for eugenic purposes in Indiana in 1972 participated in a ceremony commemorating the victims of that state’s program.
Current Public Health Initiatives
Are dark episodes like the eugenics movement a thing of the past? Maybe not. There are many current public initiatives that could be considered eugenic in the sense that they discourage the birth of children in certain populations, such as the poor. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for instance, the government in 2001 spent $1.26 billion on reversible contraceptive services and $95 million on sterilization services, virtually all of which were earmarked for the poor. The welfare programs in 24 states stop increasing benefits once a woman has had more than a certain number of children. In Dandridge v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld this approach in the face of constitutional challenge. The Court found that the state of Maryland did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it had a reasonable basis for the program, namely, “the state’s legitimate interest in encouraging employment and in avoiding discrimination between welfare families and the families of the working poor.” Interestingly, the state itself had articulated an additional goal–“providing incentives for family planning” — which the Court did not mention.
Some commentators object to calling these programs eugenic because, in contrast to compulsory sterilization or screening, they are in a sense voluntary. A woman does not have to get pregnant or accept welfare. Yet there is one mandatory public health program that is becoming increasingly eugenic: newborn screening. This program began in the 1960s after physician Robert Guthrie developed a screening test for phenylketonuria (PKU), an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder that can be treated effectively if detected soon after birth. Guthrie also pioneered a method for collecting and transporting the blood samples used for screening on special filter paper, known as “Guthrie cards.” Massachusetts adopted newborn screening on a voluntary basis in 1962 but after President Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Mental Retardation recommended mandatory screening, states began to enact newborn screening as a legal requirement. By 1973, newborn screening was compulsory in 43 states. Now it is universal.
Pressure from public health officials and groups like the March of Dimes, combined with faster and cheaper technologies such as tandem mass spectrometry and microchip arrays, are causing programs to screen for greater numbers of disorders. The American College of Medical Genetics currently advocates screening for 29 disorders and California now screens for over 70.
Only Maryland, Wyoming and the District of Columbia currently seek parental consent for newborn screening. (Massachusetts recently has begun doing so in a pilot program.) In Maryland, the consent is for the total screening package; parents are not asked to consent to specific tests. Thirty-three states provide an exemption from screening if contrary to parents’ religious beliefs but it is up to the parents to assert the objection without being asked.
In 2005, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a parental challenge to newborn screening on religious grounds in a case called Douglas County v. Anaya.3 After a home birth, the Anayas refused to allow a blood sample to be taken and sued the public health department to block enforcement of the law, which contained no exceptions. The court refused to recognize a religious exemption, noting that “[t]he health and safety of the child are of particular concern…”
By focusing on the health and safety of the child, the court makes the case seem no different from the numerous decisions in which the courts refuse to allow parents such as Jehovah’s witnesses to withhold treatment from children for religious reasons. But courts override a parental treatment decision for religious reasons only when the denial of treatment would be fatal or would seriously impair the child’s health. Routine newborn screening does not have such a direct connection to the child’s welfare. The prevalence of PKU in newborns is only about 1 in 16,000. Of the 29 disorders for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends screening, 12 have a prevalence of less than 1 in 100,000.
Recently, a federal district court upheld the right of a mother to refuse to allow her child to undergo a spinal tap for suspected meningitis.4 The mother did not assert a religious objection but instead felt that the risks of a spinal tap exceeded the benefit in her daughter’s situation. The court held that “[t]he tipping point–the point at which parents lose their substantive due process right to decline medical treatment for their minor child and the State is allowed to exercise its parens patriae interest to compel the child to undergo the treatment–exists when, considering all the circumstances in a particular case, no reasonable parent would decline treatment.” Based on this principle, the question for the Anaya court should have been: Would any reasonable parent refuse newborn screening? Only if the answer is “no” would the court be justified in overriding the parents’ wishes.
In any event, the Supreme Court of Nebraska did not rest its decision in the Anaya case on the need for screening to protect the newborn’s health alone. In addition, the court observed that mandatory screening was necessary in order to address “the potential social burdens created by children who are not identified and treated.”
The eugenics implications of this statement are all the more striking in view of the changing nature of newborn screening programs. Originally, states only screened for disorders such as PKU for which effective treatment must begin soon after birth. However, some of the tests being added to screening panels detect disorders that do not have to be treated at such an early age or, in some cases, are not readily treatable at all. Moreover, some public health advocates are now calling for abandoning the connection between newborn screening and treatment altogether. Screening for untreatable disorders, they argue, could spare the family years of uncertainty once symptoms emerge, provide the child with adjunctive if not curative interventions and permit the child to participate in research on the disorder. In addition, however, they point to the value of screening as a tool in family planning. As one recent article explains, “[a]rguments for considering broader benefits from the early diagnosis that only newborn screening can provide include…knowledge on which to base reproductive decision-making years before a disease would be diagnosed for the affected child…”5 In other words, screening should be expanded so that parents can avoid giving birth to another child with the same disability.
It is one thing for parents to make reproductive decisions in order to prevent the birth of children with disabilities. It is another thing altogether for the government to establish a compulsory genetic screening program to facilitate this objective. This is not to say that public health programs designed to give parents more information about the health status of newborns are a bad idea or that they are on a par with the atrocities of Nazi Germany. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that they are not eugenic practices.
One of the more vigorous efforts now underway to expand the power of public health authorities is being waged as part of the War on Terror. Beginning immediately after 9/11, and spurred on by the subsequent mail-borne anthrax attacks, inspection of our public health infrastructure showed that it was woefully inadequate and incapable of responding effectively to a major bioterrorism incident. This prompted intense efforts to increase public health spending on equipment and training.
In addition, however, some public health zealots believed that the nation’s public health laws needed to be revamped to give public health officials adequate power and discretion to take whatever steps might be necessary to combat bioterrorism. They proposed language for a model state law and, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, enlisted the aid of a “who’s who” of public health officials and advocates to draft a Model State Public Health Act.
An indication of the scope of the powers that would be conferred on public health officials under this law can be seen by considering its provisions for mandatory screening and testing. Under the act, a state or local public health agency may establish a compulsory screening program for any “conditions of public health importance that pose a significant risk or seriously threaten the public’s health” (section 5-106(d)(1)). The terms “significant risk” and “seriously threaten” are not defined in the act but the term “condition of public health importance” is defined to mean “a disease, syndrome, symptom, injury, or other threat to health that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community” (section 1-102(6).
Under the model act, could a public health agency therefore make prenatal screening for genetic diseases and conditions mandatory for all pregnant women? The answer is yes, so long as the agency believes that the diseases and conditions, if not detected in utero, pose a significant threat to health that can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community. Is such a belief far fetched? Not necessarily: the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently called for “routine” prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome”.
Another provision of the model act states that a public health agency may make participation in such a screening program a condition “of participating in or receiving a service or privilege” (section 5-106(d)(2)). Accordingly, women who refused to be screened could be denied health and welfare benefits.
The dark side of public health is most vividly reflected in the eugenics movement, which it championed. It is noteworthy that only three cases involving public health law have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. One, Skinner v. Oklahoma, decided in the middle of World War II, invalidated a state law requiring certain habitual criminals to be sterilized but not others.6 This is the only Supreme Court case in which the justices curbed the public health power of the state. But the Court’s opinion left open the possibility that a law that sterilized all habitual criminals would be constitutional. The other two cases were Jacobson, the vaccination case, and the eugenics case, Buck v. Bell, both discussed above.
What is striking about the Buck, case is that Justice Holmes’s opinion sustaining the constitutionality of Virginia’s eugenic sterilization law cited only one previous case as legal precedent: Jacobson. Holmes felt that the broad public health powers upheld in Jacobson extended so far that the state could sterilize people whose genes were deemed defective. Even more striking, the Buck case has never been overruled.
As Justice Holmes made clear in Buck, public health officials may sacrifice the welfare of individuals in order to promote the welfare of the public. One enduring question is who gets to decide what constitutes the public welfare. Under the Model State Public Health Act, it is the public health authorities and the act places few constraints on their discretion. A second question is how far the authorities may go in achieving a public health objective. Under the model act, their power is virtually unlimited.
A recent news story described a patient with drug-resistant TB who, believing himself to have been treated successfully, refused to wear a face mask. Public health officials accordingly quarantined him in a hospital jail cell, where the jailers refused to allow him to have access to a clock radio, television or cellphone. After news reports pointed out that the man was only under quarantine, not arrest, his cellphone was restored and the authorities promised to return his TV.
Public health practices must strike the right balance between individual and community welfare. The TB patient’s plight may seem trivial. After all, TB is a scourge and drug-resistant TB is on the increase. But the nation was founded on the principle that the power of the state must be exercised within constitutional limits and overly zealous measures in the past have left an indelible stain on the history of public health.
1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). return
2. ACT-UP Triangle v. Commissioner for Health Services, 483 S.E.2d 388 (NC 1997).
3. Douglas County v. Anaya, 694 N.W.2d 601 (Neb. 2005).
4. Mueller v. Auker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13172 (D. Id. 2007).
5. Duane Alexander (NIH) and Peter C. van Dyck (HRSA) 2006: “A Vision of the Future of Newborn Screening” 117 PEDIATRICS 350, 352.
6. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). June 2007
When you drink your coffee, do you consider what it did to the environment and the people who harvested it for you, or whether it helped turn a lush tropical paradise into a barren wasteland? Probably not. Most of us savor that first deep inhale of our morning coffee with other thoughts in our brains – or none at all, which is more my style. But unless your coffee is shade grown, like Valley of the Moon, every cup tears the fragile web of nature. Modern sun-grown coffee requires huge amounts of pesticides and fertilizer, herbicide and fungicide. By the time that coffee, which is increasingly GMO “Franken-Coffee” reaches your cup, it has helped to destroy the rain forests and delivers a savagely toxic brew of these chemicals, alien DNA (thanks to the GMO Boys!) and poison the men, women and children who tend and harvest the precious beans.
Yum! Do you take your water extract of dangerous chemicals and environmental destruction black or with cream and sugar?
Valley of the Moon(TM) Coffee (www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org) is different. So different, in fact, that it’s the first Certified Friendly Food(TM) in the world. It’s shade grown so you know it is friendly to the environment. It is grown totally without dangerous chemicals that could injury (or kill) you or the workers who produce it so every bag supports your health and theirs.
Every time you purchase Valley of the Moon(TM) Friendly Food Certified Coffee (www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org) you get the best coffee you’ve ever tasted, protect the fragile rain forests of our planet, and the workers who tend your coffee all year long to bring you that great cuppa AND you help support your Health Freedom allies, the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Now you can support health and freedom, and have a great cup of coffee in more ways.
1. For each donation of $25 we’ll say “Thank you!” with an 8 oz bag (plus shipping) of Valley of the Moon(TM) Coffee AND a $20 tax deduction certificate. Order 4 or more bags to the same address and we’ll throw in the shipping.
2. Order a minimum of 2 bags of coffee per month (no donation credit) for $19.95 per 8 oz bag (plus shipping) we will send your coffee to you
3. Your organization, shop or store can sell Valley of the Moon Coffee(TM) Coffee as a fund raiser or great “customer pleaser”. Contact Gail Coba, email@example.com, to find out how! Visit www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org now and get some of the best coffee you’ve ever tried while you support the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Video of NSF Trustee Speaking at Health Freedom Event: Divest the FDA
Why should we get the government out of our pantries and off our dinner plates? Watch Foundation Trustee Ralph Fucetola’s new 2 part video as he spoke with other health freedom advocates at a Health Freedom Rally – Hunterdon Central High, Flemington, NJ, 08822. Watch now at
A recent Government Accountability Office Study -and common sense – has powerful members of Congress agreeing that the FDA is doing a worse-than-wretched job of keeping your food safe, and you healthy. Why does the Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee on the FDA agrees with Natural Solutions Foundation? Click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=2038) to find out now.
We — you and us together — are the ‘net roots’ of Health Freedom, providing Natural Solutions to the problems that threaten our health and health freedom. The better informed we are, the more effective we become.
Using the Internet to achieve our goals, we constantly look for ways to share information in the continuing educational campaign that forms a principle thrust of our Health Freedom campaign.
Through our web sites and social networking links, our Health Freedom Action eAlerts and the action items they contain. Through the forums we’ve established on Yahoo!Groups. Through our attendance at Codex and other meetings with the YouTube video reports we’ve posted shortly after each event. Through our Health Freedom Blogs. We use many advanced communications techniques to keep you, our ‘net roots’ in the loop and in front of the crowd.
Based on your feedback and our advisers’ input, we are proud to offer you a new, enhanced outreach program:
The Health Freedom Action Webinars
Here are some of the initial Webinars you are invited to attend on the Internet. (details below):
If you are interested in sustainable living, thinking about where to go and wondering what the Natural Solutions Foundation Eco Demonstration project might offer you, this seminar is for you. More Information: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=2002#1
Off-shore placement of retirement funds may not be available for much longer. In fact, your retirement funds are being eyed by the cash-starved US government. At the same time, your health freedom and access to clean food and dietary supplements is under more attack than at any time in the past. Retirement funds can support the Valley of the Moon Eco Demonstration Project, www.NaturalSoltutionsFoundation.org, in Panama while the Valley of the Moon helps to protect your health freedoms and reclaim the production of food.
This is more than a win-win relationship. It is a must-win relationship for both you and health freedom. Join us to learn more and find out what others are doing to protect their health and their wealth. Tuition includes a $15 tax deductible Donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation and a free eBook you can share with others to help them get the picture, too.
“Speaking Truth to the President” and Other Urgent Action Items
It’s really simple, you know. If enough people demand it, the government will behave itself. We saw that a couple years ago when 598,000 of us sought to tell the FDA to leave our natural remedies alone… and the infamous anti-CAM guidance remains in limbo to this day. It comes down to taking simple actions to make sure the agencies, Congress, the President and other decision makers get your message loud and clear. Now that Health Freedom made it among the Top Ten social issues on Change.org and Change.gov, we are ready to push even harder.
That’s where these Health Freedom Action eAlerts make a difference. Please take these actions:
1. Tell the President about Change ~ Health Freedom is Our First Freedom
Please read Dr. Rima’s discussion below regarding the very serious threat to Health Care Freedom of Choice hidden in the most recent bailout (the so-called “stimulus” bill). Then get ready to tell President Obama that we want real change — which means more freedom and choice in our lives, not more control over needed medical treatments by yet another overblown, impossible to approach Federal bureaucracy!
Good work! Your vigorous response to the approaching deadline caught the attention of the EPA. So many of your responded that the deadline was extended by 2 months. Now, Mighty Mouse Warriors, keep on clicking! And remember to tell your entire contact list that health freedom is under attack – again!
The General’s Communiqué
Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.)
What Are We Fighting For?
There is a special term for those who cannot control what happens to their bodies. The word is “slave”. A land of men and women who cannot protect either their children or themselves from enforced dangers and who cannot make the health choices they value do not own their bodies. We are fighting an enemy bound and determined to take away our first freedom: our ownership of our bodies, expressed through our health freedom. Call the enemy tyranny, call it greed, call it Multinational Corporate Globalist Genocide. Call it what you like, it wants your body ill and it wants you subservient.
We are fighting an enemy which not only cares if you do not live or dies, but prefers that, after generating vast amounts of money through your suffering, you die promptly and with as little fuss as possible.
This enemy wants to take away your first, most precious, and most fundamental freedom: the freedom to All my life I have been eager to live in peace, and ready to fight to defend it. That is the way of the warrior and I am proud of my service to what I believed in over so many years when I defended my country. Now the way of the warrior is still my way, but, with you as my ally, we are fighting a far different enemy than the one that my soldiers and I have faced before.
This enemy is merciless and brutal, ready to leave us standing in place, but enslaved; working, but weak. The enemy is merciless, relentless greed (and worse) which wants us as sick as possible for as long as possible so that we are as profitable as possible. And then the enemy wants most of us dead.
The enemy is the New Feudalism, that terrifying system designed to replace our current economy and nation states with a depopulated hierarchy with a few pampered neo-aristocrats at the top of the heap with their servants and servitors around them to keep them comfortable and their technicians to keep their world humming. The rest of us, having served our purpose of generating unimaginable wealth, will have been disposed of through planned depopulation.
Does every one of their minions understand the ultimate goal? No, I think not. Has every one of the multinational corporate CEOs been read into the program? Again, I think not. Or the corrupt and dishonest government regulators? The greedy business men who put plastic in baby formula and chocolate bars? I think not.
But is the goal of weaponizing food to make us healthy and strong? I think not.
Is criminalizing 13 simple herbs and plants (like ginger, lemongrass and turmeric) used for millennia to control pests safely and cheaply in Thailand (but which compete with expensive and dangerous chemical preparations) designed to empower the farmer and keep him, his family, and his food’s consumers healthy? No, again I think not. (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/11379/farmers-up-in-arms-at-herb-listing).
How about increasing the amount of insanely toxic materials we inject into babies and children, watching them deteriorate and die in record numbers and then branding those who use rational science to resist them “conspiracy theorists”? Is that designed to help the collective immune system or to destroy it? Is the fact that so far every case of whooping cough in New Jersey’s pertussis epidemic has been in a fully vaccinated child an isolated fluke? I think not.
The evidence is overwhelming, and the authorities make it clear (in the fine print) that vaccination does NOT prevent the disease being addressed. What they do not make clear is that vaccines irritate and stimulate the immune system, but its response does NOT convey immunity to the item injected, no matter how many irritants, adjuvants, toxins, metals, stray viruses and other horrors are injected along with it.
Is the fact that vaccines have never, no never, been proven safe OR effective, yet they are foisted upon us as if they were an accident? I think not.
Is it an accident that simple, effective, inexpensive and gentle cures, yes, cures, for cancer (like the ones that cured my potentially lethal prostate cancer 15 years ago and an unrelated paroted gland cancer 38 years ago) are ruthlessly and viciously suppressed while tragically ineffective, expensive and dangerous “treatments” for cancer are touted and trumpeted? I think not.
What are we fighting for? Freedom from slavery, pure and simple. Freedom or ourselves, our children and our right to be free men and women making our own health choices and exercising our basic, first freedom: health freedom.
Dr. Rima Recommends
The Cure for Medical Health Care Fascism
By now you probably know that the Economic Stimulus Bill President Obama is proposing, unless millions of us act promptly, signals the end of any health freedom in the United States and those countries insane enough to clone themselves after our deadly “HealthCare System”.
If you want to find out exactly why, click here – http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=2060 – to read an article from Bloomber written by Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, about the coming enslavement of doctors that will enslave you so that you – and they – can make no health care choices, have no medical privacy, and select no course of treatment that the new Federal bureaucratic overlords of “HealthCare” do not authorize for you, at your age, and at your financial ‘worth’ to society. When the slaves cannot produce for the masters, it is time to let them (us) just die…
You know that I am an MD who uses only natural means to help people feel better. So if you feel sick when your read about the threat to Medical Freedom of Choice hidden in the new “stimulus” bill, here is my Prescription for you and 10 neighbors: Combine:
2 very large dollops of freedom (Strain through an intact copy of the US Constitution)
5 Tablespoons of Constitutional Remedy created specifically for lawless indigestion
4 heaping scoops of informed outrage
2 cups full of common sense mixed with equal parts human dignity
A medium size pinch of historical perspective focused on prior, well defeated fascist thrusts
A dusting of inextinguishable humor (sardonic, ironic, gallows humor all work equally well)
Season to taste with inspirational sayings and tales of Founding Fathers, Mothers and Freedom Fighters
Preparation is very important. You will need the right vessel to finish the brew so that its effects linger and become contagious:
In a crucible of pure Liberty Gold, transmuted from the oppression-era dross of lies and slavery, rapidly stir ingredients. Light a fire of truth under them and heat until they refuse to be quenched by the water of deceit. Try this several times. When the mixture is strong enough, the waters of disinformation, deceit and distortion will simply roll off to the side of the mixture and boil off.
When the potion begins to bubble, turn up the heat and wait a short time. You will note the sweet smell of personal liberty which is now rising from the information-rich bubbles forming in the freedom-brew.
If you are using a modern gigabyte system, you will have a chord available. If not, get any nearby 11 year old to program an old one for you. Using the chord supplied, plug the crucible into the internet. Exercise caution while using the long, insulated wire supplied because the packets of information will be hot and make the liberty infusion even hotter. Oddly, no matter how hot it gets, liberty information will not burn the consumer although it may make them uncomfortable at first when the truth gets out. With familiarity and increased rational though, however, people who sample it become very fond of its taste and effect and will go to great lengths to obtain and share more liberty information.
Note: this will act as a toxic brew when it comes into contact with fascists, even if they are wearing white coats.
Once brewed, the mixture has several curious properties:
Liberty Information will not, however, kill Avian Flu or other weaponized organisms. Nano silver will, however, do exactly that without harming the beneficial bacteria of the body and can be obtained much more simply, and with less preparation than Liberty Information. For that reason, although it is currently under attack by a corrupt Government regulatory organization, the EPA, after being approved by that same organization, you are advised that it is available here: www.Nutronix.com/NaturalSolutions
Please share this message with your friends and contacts and ask them to help protect food and freedom, too. Let them know that they can get their very own free subscription to the Health Freedom Action eAlerts at http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=187.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Natural Solutions Foundation