Filed: April 15, 2008 – FTC Miscellaneous Matter No. P002501
Natural Solutions Foundation
March 6, 2008 (rev 03/28/08)1
The Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
VACCINATION ADVERTISING & LABELING
With Request for Emergent Relief
To: Donald S. Clark, Secretary
To the Commissioners of the
Federal Trade Commission of the
United States of America
The Natural Solutions Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Foundation) and all those who hereafter join (hereinafter jointly referred to as the Petitioner/s), do hereby PETITION the United States Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter, the FTC and or the Federal Agency) regarding the matter of the Advertising of Vaccinations. The Foundation is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) incorporated in the State of Nevada and recognized as exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The mission of the Foundation includes educating decision-makers with regard to natural solutions to health care needs.
1.1. This Petition is submitted to request specific action by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Agency) within the scope of its mandated duties in order to exhaust administrative remedies. The primary purpose of the Petition is to seek emergent Federal Agency actions with regard to providing the public truthful and not misleading information about Mandated and Voluntary Vaccinations through Vaccination Advertising, Vaccination Information and Vaccination Labeling provided to patients, parents, and guardians.
1.2. The petitioners resolve and state that there is no significant scientific agreement or sufficient reliable and competent scientific evidence from independent, unbiased sources to allow the conclusion that individual or multiple vaccinations, particularly of young children, provide any measurable public health care benefit. This is true whether the vaccinations are mandated or voluntary. Further, there is a large body of evidence which shows that repeated single and multiple vaccinations, especially in young children, can cause and has in fact caused devastating and irreparable harm to tens of thousands of the most vulnerable citizens: our children. Vaccination is an un-insurable medical risk that must never be mandated or offered on a voluntary basis without provisions for the broadest medical, philosophical, and religious exemptions with fully informed voluntary consent.
1.3. Billions of dollars of tax funds have already been paid to families of vaccine-injured children under the auspices of the Federal Governmentâ€™s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP); created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) in part to â€œestablish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines.â€ The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. In fact, vaccine injuries are so common that the VICP, located in the Department of Health and Human Servicesâ€™ (HHS) Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation was established to deal with the devastating consequences of vaccination, of which parents and patients were not and are not informed. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
1.4. Currently, 18 vaccine types are listed with several vaccines in each type. See: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm
1.5. These consequences are so common that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) catalogs tens of thousands of vaccine- related injuries and deaths. See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vaers.html; New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9. Furthermore, the CDC, FDA and other agencies estimate that only 1 to 10% of vaccine adverse events actually occurring are reported, so the actual magnitude of the problem is unknown and
substantially likely to be profoundly greater than current documentation of actual events suggests. (e.g., a National Vaccine Information Center survey of NY pediatricians found that only 2.5% report adverse events).
1.6. If the frightening facts reported in VAERS are considered by the Federal Agency, no reasonable regulator can permit the current system to continue. It must be stopped immediately in order to stop the irreparable harm we demonstrate here; and which full public hearings would amply confirm.
1.7. Further examples of potential harm to the public abound and are very evident with many current Vaccination advertising practices.
1.8. For one example, this report cited on the Internet, â€œOnly after filing a lawsuit against the FDA was Judicial Watch able to uncover New FDA Records Detailing an additional 8 deaths among an additional1,824 Adverse Reaction Reports Related to Gardasil, Merckâ€™s Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine between May 10, 2007 and Sept. 7, 2007. The death reports include 12 and 13 year old girls.â€ This brings the known total for this one vaccination to 3,461 adverse reactions, including 11 deaths, since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the vaccine; see: http://ahrp.blogspot,com/2007/10/8-more-deaths-liked-to-gardasil-hpv.html
1.9. Current Vaccination Advertising and Labeling do not adequately warn the public of the significant un-insurable medical risks, nor do they disclose to the public their exemption rights. No informed consent waivers are provided by physicians after full discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination. Instead, like the students at the University of Maine campus, in December of 2007, who were vaccinated under duress; on pain of being locked out of their dormitories, eating halls, classrooms, libraries and all other University facilities, parents and guardians are not fully informed. No discussion of dangers, potential adverse events and other considerations pertaining to personal choice in the face of an un-insurable risk took place; nor was any discussion about personal exemptions, as established by law, permitted.
1.10. The same was true on November 17, 2007, when 2,300 children were vaccinated at gunpoint, with the presence of police dogs, in Prince Georgeâ€™s County, Maryland. The parents were threatened with jail and fines if they refused vaccination in a state with exemptions which were never discussed with the parents. It is important to note that the Statesâ€™ Attorney, Mr. GenIvey, told our Foundation representative privately, and repeated during an international radio broadcast, that he had learned these vaccines were so dangerous that he availed himself of the exemption and did not allow his children to receive the vaccines.
1.11. Thus advertising, backed by coercion, was used to force 2,300 schoolchildren to be vaccinated; many against their parentsâ€™ will. Many children were re-vaccinated with all vaccines because the Prince Georgeâ€™s County School District admitted that it had lost the childrenâ€™sâ€™ immunization records. These children were put at an increased risk by this process because the neurological and other related damage following vaccination is directly proportional to the total body burden of toxins introduced by vaccination. This fact is not disclosed to parents. Instead, advertising is used to portray vaccination as safe and effective in preventing diseases; an untruthful and misleading perception. All such advertising should stop until adequate warnings and disclosures can be approved and implemented.
II. Actions Requested
2.0. The Petitioners urge the Federal Trade Commission to take the following actions (hereinafter, the Petition Action Requests):
2.1. Issuance of an immediate Federal Trade Commission Emergency Order, forbidding all advertising of vaccinations by the manufacturer, public health agency or any other entity or person protected from liability under such Federal Laws as Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XIX, Part 2, Subpart A, Section 300aa-16, Limitations of Actions, until further order of the Commission.
2.2. Issue an immediate Federal Trade Commission Emergency Order halting all Interstate Commerce regarding vaccines and vaccine related goods, until further order of the Commission.
2.3. Furthermore, the Commission should consider requiring that any practitioner who administers vaccines should be required to notify patient and parents or guardians that vaccines are currently the subject of scrutiny because of their lack of proven protection in communicable disease and their dangers to persons receiving them. Patients, parents or guardians wishing to proceed with vaccination should have a waiver form explaining the dangers, uncertainties, un-insurability, and State and or Federal exemption opportunities provided to them. Signing such an explicit waiver is the minimum required for truly informed consent under the terms of the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964, http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm – which constitutes part of the Law of Nations under the United States Constitution.
2.4. Hold immediate Federal Agency hearings to prepare appropriate Federal Agency rules which will ensure the public that the un-insurable medical risk of vaccination injury will not be mandated over the medical, philosophical and religious exemption rights of Citizens. States should be enjoined from withholding services like schooling from unvaccinated children; admission of unvaccinated students to universities and colleges, and similar coercive activities based on inaccurate and misleading advertising of vaccine efficacy and safety.
2.5. Hold immediate Federal Agency hearings to determine whether regulatory agencies have exercised prudent judgment in the face of abundant scientific, empirical and other information, supported by adverse event reporting; in permitting the production, shipment, sale and injection of vaccines. Scrutiny should focus on all ingredients in vaccines: active, inert, intended, adventitious, unintended, trace and adjunctive; since all ingredients may cause responses in the body which may cause harm to the recipient. Squalene, for example, is an adjuvant used to enhance immune response, and may be safe when ingested; but is the cause of serious auto-immune disorders when injected. Most new generation vaccines contain Squalene.
2.6. Mandate that all future Vaccination Advertising and Labeling contain, at a minimum, the following Warning and Disclosure –
â€œWARNING: The safety and efficacy of vaccination has not been demonstrated by reliable, independent, unbiased, and competent scientific evidence. DISCLOSURE: You or your children may have a right under law to a medical, philosophical or religious exemption from this vaccination.â€
2.7. It is imperative to assure that all recipients or their parents or guardians are fully informed about the dangers they may face if they allow themselves or their charges to be vaccinated. A waiver should be required from patients, parents or guardians indicating that pros and cons of vaccination were fully discussed with and understood by them; and that any exemption rights were also fully discussed and understood. The waiver should state clearly that the recipient, parent or guardian fully understands that manufacturers of vaccines have no liability; and that the risks in vaccination are un-insurable.
2.8. Mandate that a physician, upon appropriate consultation, may provide a valid medical excuse from current and future vaccinations recommended by any Federal Agency for any child who has suffered a reaction of any type to any previous vaccination. The childâ€™s medical history as reported by the parent shall be taken to provide conclusive evidence of such reaction; and no child shall be subject to any vaccination unless the physician shall have certified in writing that it is both safe and necessary that the particular child is vaccinated against that particular disease or diseases and why it is necessary. Physicians who find no justification for vaccination shall not be liable to censure and or harassment by their state medical boards of jurisdiction or other professional organizations including, but not limited to the American Medical Association (AMA), American Association of Pediatric Physicians (AAPP), and State Medical Associations.
2.9. As an executive agency, the Commission must â€œTake Care that the Laws be faithfully executedâ€ (Article II, Section3, United States Constitution)
2.10. Further, the Commission should consider medical ethics as set forth in the AMA Code of Ethics, The Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Helsinki. We urge the Commission to consider the overriding importance of the injunction to â€œâ€¦first do no harmâ€¦â€
III. Statement in Support of Petition Requested Actions
3.0. When the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently recommended that toddlers be subjected to the flu vaccine, the states began the process of mandating the vaccination before the child could be admitted to public school. New Jersey became the first state to mandate the flu vaccination for children, publishing the final rule on January 7, 2008. Such mandates condition the acceptance of a public benefit (â€œfree public educationâ€) upon submission to a questionable medical procedure.
3.1. This is particularly troubling since the flu vaccine continues to contain â€œtraceâ€ amounts of mercury; even the allegedly â€œmercury freeâ€ versions use mercury in the manufacturing process and a â€œtraceâ€ amount remains. There have been no safety studies done on Thimerasol (manufactured by Eli Lilly) since 1929 and that study was done by K.C. Smithburn on patients dying from meningitis. MSDS for Thimerasol states, â€œExposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe motor coordination impairment.â€ Eli Lilly MSDS June 13, 1991. None the less, this toxic component is being offered to pregnant women and children, increasingly as a mandated vaccination. Other components of vaccines are also highly troubling for similar reasons.
3.2. Here is one comment regarding how much mercury is enough to cause harm: â€œMost worryingly, exposure levels were not particularly high, Hair concentrations in the [Japanese] villagers averaged 4 micrograms of mercury per gram of hair. This is just a tenth of the level considered dangerous for adults by the World Health Organization, and not much higher than that found in many countries. In the US and Japan, for instance, the average mercury concentration in hair is around 1 and 2 micrograms per gram respectively.â€ This tends to show that the CDCâ€™s claimed â€œtraceâ€ levels of mercury remaining in vaccines may very well be dangerous. See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/ns-esmo61103.php
3.3. According to the New York Times on April 5, 2003, â€œThe Food and Drug Administration has begun using the Environmental Protection Agencyâ€™s much lower safe level for mercury in the human body, an official of the food and drug agency said this week, â€˜Before the change, the F.D.A. guidelines set a safe level that was four times as high as that of ..environmental agency.. standard.â€™â€ See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9507EFDD1538F936A35757\C0A9659C8B63
3.4. Therefore, the question becomes: â€œIs there a â€˜traceâ€™ amount of Mercury in the recently recommended flu vaccination?â€
3.5. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC), â€œThimerosal still may be used in the early stages of making certain vaccines. However, it is removed through a purification process.â€ Leaving a â€œtraceâ€ amount of â€œless than 0.3 mcgâ€ in the final dose. See: http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/emails-from-cdc.html
3.6. The existence of any trace amount is very troubling, especially as the â€œtraceâ€ amounts add up over repeated vaccinations. Recent analysis shows that contrary to earlier reports, there is a measurable relationship between autism and mercury toxicity. See: http://mcs-america.org/January2008pg17.htm – citation: J Child Neurol. 2007 Nov; 22(11); 1308-1311. In this context we note the mushrooming autism rate appears to be in direct correlation with introduction of new vaccines (e.g., MMR), and we further note the conspicuous absence of autism in religious populations that do not vaccinate? This contradicts various authoritiesâ€™ assertions that vaccines do not cause autism. On November 9, 2007 the Federal governmentâ€™s lawyers conceded a Court of Federal Claims case involving autism caused by vaccines; there are 4900 other pending autism-vaccine injury cases before the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html
3.7. The Natural Solutions Foundation, however, does not limit its concern to mercury adulterated vaccinations; even if vaccines become truly mercury free, they would still (a) lack proven effectiveness and (b) continue to contain other ingredients, such as Squalene, that assault health immune systems. We continue to object to any mandated or voluntary vaccination that may cause harm to individuals either through its component or synergistic parts; or through the impact of single or multiple vaccines on the immune system, which are and can be immeasurable, extremely worrisome, troubling, debilitating and/or lethal. There are alternatives to dangerous vaccinations that can, in a modern society with proper hygiene, prevent the spreading of infectious disease; many such diseases are self limiting.
3.8. It is a serious affront to basic human rights to force or mislead individuals, especially parents and guardians of minor children, to accept invasive medical treatments without fully informed, voluntary consent. See the discussion below regarding the World Medical Associationâ€™s Declaration of Helsinki in this regard.
IV. Legal Authorities in Support of the Petition Requested Actions
A. Fundamental Legal Authorities
A.4.0. This Petition is grounded in fundamental principles of inalienable right, law and equity.
A.4.1. The primary legal basis for submitting this Petition to the Commission is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: â€œCongress shall make no lawâ€¦ abridgingâ€¦ the right of the peopleâ€¦ to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â€
A.4.2. Petitioners also cite the World Medical Association 1964 Declaration of Helsinki; see: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm This Declaration has the force of International Law and it clearly forbids experimental medication or medication without fully informed consent.
A.4.3. The Acts establishing the authority of the Federal Agency being herein petitioned are also a legal basis for the Petition. The Commission exists solely to protect the public from harm, within the limits established by the Constitution of the United States of America. Among the principles established by the Laws and Regulations, long the explicit policy of the Federal Trade Commission, is that all commercial advertising must be â€œtruthful and not misleading.â€
A.4.4. The statute in the derogation of the common law and Constitutional limitations, establishing exemptions from liability of Vaccine Injuries, 42 USC 300aa-16 (and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, there under) is further cited as a law that must be strictly construed in favor of patients, guardians, parents and children, and strictly construed against the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry and other exempt persons.
A.4.5. Basic common law principles prohibiting forced acquiescence under duress and limited or intentionally distorted information, as exemplified by the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Thompson v Western States Medical Centers â€“ 535 U.S. 357 (2002), as further described below.
A.4.6. Additionally, the Statutes authorizing the Federal Agency contain general provisions that support the actions requested in this petition. Federal Law includes provisions that grant the responsible persons in the Federal Agency broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations â€œnecessary to carry out the Act[s].â€
B. Legal Argument-Procedural
B.4.0 The Federal Agency should issue the Petition Request Actions as an Interim Final Rule without first completing Notice and Comment, Risk Assessment, and Cost-Benefit Analysis.
B.4.1. Under ordinary circumstances, the Federal Agency must comply with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the specific Acts authorizing the Federal Trade Commission, including the use of notice-and-comment rulemaking and the completion of a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis before issuance of a new rule. However, both Acts provide for exceptions to those requirements for circumstances such as those present here, where the continuation of currently permitted Vaccination Advertising and Labeling would constitute and imminent threat to public safety and any delay in policy-making would be contrary to the public interest. On the other hand, stopping all vaccine advertisements until a proper warning and disclosure can be included will not prevent voluntary, fully informed vaccination nor impede public health.
B.4.2. The Federal Trade Commission should avail itself of those statutory exceptions and promulgate the requested policies without first providing the public with notice and an opportunity for comment and before completing a full risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The Federal Agency should first adopt the policy as an â€œinterim-final rule,â€ which would become binding upon publication (or within a time certain; for example, a week after publication) [A specific time frame must be given, otherwise the Agency will find one or more loopholes and one or more ways to circumvent adherence to the ruling.], and subsequently provide for public comment and complete its risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
B.4.3. The Requested Actions Satisfy the â€œGood Causeâ€ Exception to the Administrative Procedure Actâ€™s (APA) Requirement for Notice and Comment.
B.4.4. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides that full notice-and-comment rulemaking is not required when an agency â€œfor good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of the reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.â€ 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(B) The good cause exception â€œis an important safety valve to be used where delay would do real harm.â€ United States Steel v EPA, 595 F.2d207, 214 (5th Cir. 1979). According to the legislative history of the provision, â€œâ€™impracticableâ€™ means a situation in which the due and required execution of the agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by its undertaking public rule-making proceedings.â€ S. Rep. No. 752, 79thCong., 1st Sess., at 16 (1945). As one court has held [For clarity, the specific court must be named here, in addition to the specific case cited below.], determining â€œimpracticalityâ€ requires analysis in practical terms of the particular statutory-agency setting and the reasons why agency action could not await notice and comment.â€ American Transfer & Storage Company v. ICC, 719 F. 2d 1283, 1295 (5th Cir. 1983).
B.4.5. Below are listed three of numerous instances in which courts have upheld an agencyâ€™s decision to invoke the â€œgood causeâ€ exception and issue a rule without providing notice and comment where a delay would threaten public safety or the environment. See: Hawaii Helicopter OperatorsAssâ€™n v. FAA, 51 F.3d 212, 24 (9th Cir. 1995) (good cause exception satisfied in view of â€œthe threat to public safety reflected in an increasing number of helicopter accidentsâ€); Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d741, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1987) (good cause exception satisfied in view of urgent need for hunting regulations where herds were threatened with extinction); Northwest Airlines v. Goldschmidt, 645 F2d 1309, 1321 (8th Cir. 1981) (good cause exception satisfied in view of urgent need to allocate landing slots at major airport).
B.4.6. The rationale underlying those decisions is that compliance with time-consuming procedural requirements would â€œdo real harmâ€ by delaying implementation of urgently needed policies to safeguard public health. Clearly, the exigent circumstances necessary to satisfy the Administrative Procedures Actâ€™s (APAâ€™s) good cause exception are present. Autism, neurological damage, death and other consequences of vaccine injury are not generally reversible and the present danger to children is so great that the â€œgood causeâ€ exception is well warranted in this case. Consumers are being defrauded while children and others are being irreversibly damaged. Once a child collapses into autism, for example, there is a virtually irreversible path which the child and family follow, often leading to eventual institutionalization. These are, in most cases, preventable tragedies. The probable harm is immediate and irreparable.
C. Legal Argumentâ€”Substantive
C.4.0. The United States Supreme Court has spoken forcefully, enforcing the consumersâ€™ right OR consumersâ€™ rights to truthful information about healthcare issues. See: Thompson v Western States Medical Centers, 535 U.S. 357, where Justice Oâ€™Connor wrote, â€œIf the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last-not first-resort. . . We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information. . . Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring . . . a warning that . . . its risks were unknown.â€
C.4.1. The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionality permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction, such as the sale of Dietary Supplements) is a two prong test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If â€œnoâ€ to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is â€œsubstantialâ€, (2) the regulation must â€œdirectly advance â€œthe governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be â€œmore extensive than is necessary to serve that interestâ€ (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).
C.4.2. The Federal Agency has stated its general rule for the advertising of products that are alleged to have health benefits, to ensure that such advertising is â€œtruthful and not misleading.â€
C.4.3. In this context, it is useful to recall the 1996 comments of then FTC Commissioner Starek, at the National Infomercial Marketing Association (comments the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains on its web site). He explained the issue to which the Supreme Court alluded in Thompson â€“ preventing misleading advertisements: â€œAs many of you know, the FTC is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In advertising and marketing, the law requires that objective claims be truthful and substantiated. The FTC does not pursue subjective claims or pufferyâ€”claims like â€˜this is the best hairspray in the world.â€™ But if there is an objective component to the claimâ€”such as â€˜more consumers prefer our hairspray to any otherâ€™ or â€˜our hairspray lasts longer than the most popular brandsâ€™â€”then you need to be sure that the claim is not deceptive and that you have adequate substantiation before you make the claim. These requirements apply both to explicit or express claims and to implied claims. Also, a statement that is literally true can have a deceptive implication when considered in the context of the whole advertisement, even if that implication is not the only possible interpretation.
â€œThe substantiation requirement exists because every time an advertiser makes an objective claim, the advertiser also implies that there is a reasonable basis for the claim. This reasonable basis is substantiation. What constitutes a reasonable basis for a particular claim can vary, depending upon the nature of the claim, the product, the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of substantiation that experts in the field believe is reasonable. Health and safety claims generally require competent and reliable scientific evidence. And if a marketer makes a representation that a claim has a particular level of supportâ€”for example, â€˜clinical studies proveâ€¦â€™â€“ the law requires at least that level of substantiation.â€
C.4.4. The required level of substantiation for alleged claims about medical products such as vaccines is â€œsignificant scientific agreement.â€ In the case of vaccines, there is no significant scientific agreement by unbiased sources regarding the vaccines and manufacturersâ€™ claims for the safety and efficacy of the product which satisfies the Petitionersâ€™ claim of false advertising; especially where and when the public is misled by not being warned of either the dangers of the product or of any right of members of the public to refuse vaccination on religious, medical or philosophical grounds. The Petitioner urges to the Federal Agency that the advertising of vaccination is clearly a case where â€œrequiringâ€¦ a warning thatâ€¦ its risks were unknownâ€¦â€ (Thompson v Western States, supra.) is the minimum required by Law to protect the public, and especially the most vulnerable among us, our children.
Due to the emergent nature of the Petition and with the lives of innocent children at stake and hanging in the balance, the Petitioners urges the Federal Trade Commission to act immediately: issuing an Emergency Order stopping all Vaccination Advertising until the Federal Agency adopts as its policy the recommendations made herein; and specifically that a sufficient and appropriate Warning and Disclosure, such as suggested herein, be required with all vaccination advertising. As in the matter of Tobacco Advertising, where the Federal Trade Commission took a leading role in protecting the public, advertising in support of voluntary or forced vaccination, impacting millions and maiming or killing tens of thousands, is a most appropriate subject for immediate Federal Agency action.
Natural Solutions Foundation
/s/ Albert N. Stubblebine III
Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine, III (U.S. Army, Ret.)
President & Trustee
/s/ Rima E. Laibow
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director & Trustee
/s/ Ralph Fucetola
Ralph Fucetola, JD
Vice President, Trustee and Counsel
Prepared by: Rima E. Laibow, MD, Ralph Fucetola, JD and Alan G. Phillips, JD
1. Note: This Petition (in both signed paper copy and data copy on CD) was originally priority mailed to the Commission on March 6, 2008 and again on March 28th. According to USPS Delivery Certification #0305 2710 0001 6184 2200 it was received by the Commission on March 11, 2008 and #0305 2710 0001 6182 7672 was received on April 1, 2008. Upon inquiry, these copies were not found and it was suggested that the Petition be re-mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt, as addressed above. The Petition was re-mailed (both signed paper copy and data copy on CD) on April 10, 2008, Certified Number: 7006 2150 0001 6141 2378.
I would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of Gen. Stubblebine, Dr. Laibow, Counsel Phillips and our volunteer proof-reader Ruth for making this Petition possible.
We will be creating an Action Item once FTC issues a docket number for the Petition, so you can send your comments to the agency.
And, of course, your generous donations to help offset the costs of filing and pursuing this Citizens Petition are necessary to make it effective. Please Donate here..
PS – here is an email I just sent to my Senators and Congressman:
Sent 04/07/08 to Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Menendex and Rep. Garrett.
I am a trustee of the Natural Solutions Foundation, an NGO (nongovernmental organization). This past month I submitted a Citizens Petition from the foundation to the Federal Trade Commission, urging emergency action to protect the public from false and misleading advertisements.
Twice the petition has been misplaced by the FTC. The USPS tracking numbers for the petition, showing that it had been delivered to FTC on March 11 and on April 1 are: 0305 2710 0001 6184 2200 and 0305 2710 0001 6182 7672.
The petition can be seen at:
I find it rather distressing that FTC has mysteriously “lost” a Citizens Petition challenging them to protect our rights twice, despite the fact that there are two confirmed tracking numbers from the USPS showing that it has been delivered to the FTC headquarters.
The FTC failed to accept the document, for which we are waiting for a Document Number, by email, insisting instead on a “hard copy”. They have now lost the hard copy twice.
The United States Constitution protects our right to petition the government for redress. Federal law authorizes FTC to act on Citizens Petitions.
As an NJ citizen and an attorney I am troubled and perplexed and turn to you for assistance.
The petition involves important matters of public concern and should not be ignored. The hundreds of thousands of NSF supporters who are concerned about these issues expect Congress and the federal agencies to act to protect them.
If FTC fails to acknowledge or act on the petition, Congress should hold public hearings on that failure and on the underlying issues of freedom and conscience we raise.
Ralph Fucetola JD
April 15, 2008 Update:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) record room acknowledged today that it had received Natural Solutions Foundation’s Citizens Petition to the FTC regarding truthful and not misleading advertising of vaccinations. The Petition has been given Miscellaneous Matter Number P002501.
It is expected that the Secretary to the Commission will assign the matter to a Commission attorney. The Petition requests an emergency halt to all vaccine advertising until the Commission can hold hearings and approve appropriate disclosures and disclaimers to prevent the public from being confused by false and misleading claims with regard to vaccines.
Members of the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the Petition and provide to the Commission examples of vaccine advertisements that confused them.