Spinning the "Ethics" of Forced Vaccination

In response to a press release from Seattle Children's Hopsital, July 15, 2006
International Conference Debates Vaccination Hesitancy and Parental Refusal
Experts in the Field Discuss the Successes and Challenges of Childhood Vaccination

As the Nuremberg Tribunal so effectively discussed at the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg after World War II, the utilitarian rationale for forced medical interventions is fundamentally ethically corrupt. Utilitarianism, which suggests that the state can force a minority to sacrifice their well being for the majority, cannot be ethically used by doctors or scientists to force medical interventions which can injure or kill or individuals without their informed consent. In the case of one-size-fits-all forced vaccination policies, the parents of children, who are genetically vulnerable to vaccine induced injury and death, are being forced to kill or injure their children without their informed consent.

The forced vaccination stance taken by M.D./MPH "experts" reveals exactly why educated parents do not trust them. Why would a parent entrust their child's life to a medical doctor who does not care if their child is killed or crippled by a vaccine but only cares if the child gets vaccinated in order to "protect" the State?

The right to informed consent to any medical intervention which carries a risk of injury or death, including vaccination, is a human right. Perhaps the MD/MPH experts who want to violate the human rights of parents should actually speak with, rather than publicly gossip about, those parents refusing to offer up their children as sacrificial lambs on the alter of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

Chronically Sick Kids on Meds at Camp

In response to an article in the New York Times, July 16, 2006
Checklist for Camp: Bug Spray. Sunscreen. Pills.

The destruction of the biological integrity of millions of young Americans by M.D./Ph.D. vaccinologists in government and industry is reaping tragic consequences today. More than 25 percent of America's child population is chronically ill or disabled, and many children are taking daily prescription drugs.

Unable to naturally experience and recover from childhood infections like generations in the past, while their immune systems are atypically manipulated with 48 doses of 12 vaccines by age six, many American children are being set up for chronic inflammation that does not resolve and leads to chronic illness and disability. Drug companies making vaccines and medical doctors pushing vaccines profit twice from the damage done: the vaccine injured young grow up addicted to immune modulating and behavior modifying drugs and dependent upon the medical doctors prescribing them.

But who is going to pay for the damage done? Too many of our vaccine injured young will be too sick to contribute to and lead our nation when they become adults. Will the M.D./Ph.D. "experts" pushing vaccines use their 401K's to finance care for the adults of tomorrow they are responsible for damaging as children today?

The human and financial price of helping a child recover from an acute case of pertussis, measles, mumps, chicken pox, or rotavirus pales in comparison with the human and financial price of caring for a child who develops and suffers from asthma, diabetes, learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, medication resistent seizures, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease or other autoimmune and brain dysfunction for the rest of his or her life.

Flu Vaccine and Human Guinea Pigs

In response to an article on Bloomberg News, July 15, 2006
Work on Pandemic Flu Vaccines Must Start Now, WHO Report Says

Already, public health and drug company officials are talking about the inevitability of "unexpected adverse events" when people take the experimental flu vaccines they are using billions of taxpayer dollars to create for a flu pandemic they insist is just around the corner. Already they are trying to soften up the public to accept the idea that, whenever anyone dies or is crippled after talking an experimental flu vaccine, it will only be a "coincidence" and unrelated to the vaccination just given.

Obsessed with the idea they must eradicate all mircoorganisms causing infectious disease, especially the ever evolving and mutating strains of viruses causing human influenza, the vaccinologists running things at the CDC and WHO are teaming up with drug companies to wreak more havoc on the human immune system. Not content with targeting children for flu vaccination, they are now targeting all pregnant women, whose unborn child in the womb will be the unwitting recipient of a dose of flu vaccine.

And when, after vaccination, that unborn infant is either spontaneously aborted or is eventually born with brain or immune system damage, the mother will be blamed for defective genes or not eating right during pregnancy. The flu vaccine, which atypically manipulated the immune system of both mother and unborn child, will never be implicated. If she questions the doctor who gave her the flu vaccine, he will tell her she is crazy, that vaccines do not cause such things and that it was all "just a coindicence."

And the killing and crippling of mothers and babies after annual and experimental flu vaccines will go on. And when anybody wonders or asks if the flu vaccine had anything to do with it, government health officials and doctors will say over and over and over again that it was just a "coincidence."

Scared UK Doctors Won't Charge Wakefield

In response to an article in The Daily Mail (UK), July 15, 2006
MMR row doctor who defied Government 'in the clear'

It has been eight long years since British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, M.D. and colleagues from the Royal Free Hospital in London published an article in The Lancet urging further scientific investigation into the possible link between MMR vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism in some children. Ever since, Wakefield has been subjected to a vicious personal and professional smear campaign at the hands of public health officials and medical doctors in Britain, the U.S. and Canada, who have no tolerance for scientific investigation into the biological mechanisms for vaccine injury and death.

Britain's General Medical Council (GMC), which is the equivalent of a self annointed Medical Supreme Court, has publicly been conducting an "investigation" for the past two years into whether Andrew Wakefield should be convicted of "professional misconduct" and have his medical license taken away. For the sin of trying to prevent healthy children from regressing physically, mentally, and emotionally after MMR vaccination into autism, the GMC has been determined to make sure he cannot find ways to help autistic children recover from MMR vaccine induced autism.

Now, at the eleventh hour, just before Andrew Wakefield was to have his day in court and publicly defend himself against nearly a decade of baseless charges by those seeking to silence him, the doctors in charge of the GMC have put their collective tails between their legs and run. Just like a common street bully, who blindsides an innocent with a sucker punch in the dark, doctors inside and outside of government and industry are too chicken to stand ground and fight in the light of day. The GMS has apparently figured out it won't stand a chance fighting Wakefield under the bright lights of the media it has duped and exploited in order to hide the child victims of one-size-fits all vaccine policies that end up targeting the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice.

It does not matter anymore what the GMC and doctors in charge of the mass vaccination system in the US and countries around the world do or do not do to Andrew Wakefield. His legacy is already written in the hearts and minds of the people whose children he has saved and will save from a lifetime of pain.

MMR Vaccine: Caring About Anna

In response to an article in United Press International, July 14, 2006
The Age of Autism: Anna's Last Days (2)

Slowly but surely a few investigative journalists looking into the dark corners of one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies in the U.S. and Europe are coming to the same conclusion parents of vaccine injured children came to a long time ago: individual children are being killed and crippled on the alter of the "greater good" utilitarian pseudo-ethic embraced by public health officials. Public health officials around the world are compromising the biological integrity of our young by insisting on achieving "herd immunity" and refusing to acknowledge just how many casualties it takes to do that.

The immoral utlitarian rationale created by British lawyer Jeremy Benthem in the 1800's was then and still is a convenient excuse for elitists in charge of making government policy to use the "greater good" club to dismiss a minority of individuals as expendable in service to the majority. Works just fine if you and your loved ones happen to be in the majority. Doesn't work so fine if you and your own are the one's being sacrificed.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, which put the utilitarian rationale on trial along with doctors they charged with crimes against humanity after World War II, got it right in 1947: no human being - even if they have M.D. or Ph.D. written after their name - has the right to use another human being as a means to an end, no matter how good that end may appear to be. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which created the Nuremberg Code to serve as a guide for the practice of ethical medicine, made it quite clear that it is immoral for doctors to force other human beings to risk their lives in order to advance medicine, science or improve the human condition without their voluntary, informed consent.

Were Anna's parents truly informed by public health officials about the risks of MMR vaccine before their daughter was vaccinated?

Mass vaccination policies dictated by doctors employed by government may have saved many in the past who would have died or been crippled by infectious diseases. But it is becoming clearer that vaccines and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies have also destroyed the lives of many individuals and their families, who may or may not have contracted an infectious disease and may or may not have died or been injured from the disease.

The time has come for government health officials around the world to remove the blinders from their eyes and tear down the stone walls they have built around their hearts and care as much about children, like Anna, who die or are crippled by vaccines, as they say they care about children who die or are crippled by infectious diseases.

HPV Vaccine: Necessary or Safe?

In response to an article from United Press International, July 11, 2006
Steep Learning Curve for HPV Vaccine?

HPV infection is asymptomatic and is cleared naturally by the majority of men and women who experience it. Rarely, HPV infection becomes persistent and, after many years, can cause cervical cancer in women. Most cervical cancers are prevented in the U.S. with routine pap smears.

Merck's pre-licensure clinical trials for their HPV vaccine, Gardasil, were methodologically flawed. Merck used a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo to mask the magnitude of the Gardasil's reactivity. It appears that only about 900 pre-adolescent girls participated in the clinical trials. Merck and the FDA know nothing about the ability of Gardasil to cause long term health problems, particularly autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, in young girls (see an analysis of pre-licensure clinical trials with citations on the NVIC Website.

The CDC's recommendation for universal use of HPV vaccine by all pre-adolescent girls is a profit-making enterprise for Merck and it is a potential health risk for little girls, who may or may not ever become HPV infected. And, if a girl does become HPV infected after becoming sexually active when she gets older, she will have a very low risk of becoming chronically HPV infected. And if she becomes chronically HPV infected, she will have an even lower risk of developing cervical cancer unless she fails to get regular pap smears. Because of routine pap screening in America, there has been a 75 percent decline in cervical cancer since the 1950's. Cervical cancer now accounts for only one percent of all cancers in American women.

Spending billions of dollars to vaccinate every 9 year old girl in America with an HPV vaccine which has not been proven to be safe or necessary is ridiculous.

Teen Fights for Informed Consent

In response to an article in USA Today July 11, 2006
Teen Fights for Right to Pick Cancer Treatment

Abraham Cherrix, 16, has cancer. The first round of chemotherapy almost killed him. After he and his parents conducted independent research into alternative therapies, he told medical doctors at a hospital in Virginia, where he was given the first round of chemotherapy, that he does not want more chemo.

His parents have backed him up. But the medical doctors who gave Abraham the first round of chemo, apparently irate that their orders are being disobeyed, told a state social services agency about his disobedience. Now Abraham's parents have been charged with child "medical neglect," a charge that is often brought against parents who refuse to give their children all of the more than 3 dozen doses of a dozen vaccines the federal government dictates they should have by age six; who refuse to give hyperactive children toxic drugs to control behavior while they are in school; or who refuse to submit children to to other kinds of potentially harmful medical interventions.

A Virginia juvenile court is now deiberating about whether doctors can force Abraham to undergo chemo that could kill him without his voluntary, informed consent or the voluntary, informed consent of his parents.

In an online USA Today poll, in which more than 250,000 Americans weighed in by July 13, 2006 on whether the state should force Abraham to undergo another round of potentially deadly chemotherapy, 85 percent of those Americans voted "NO" to the idea of state-forced medical treatment. Putting themselves in Abraham's shoes and the shoes of his parents, these men and women are voting for the human right to informed consent to any medical intervention which can kill or cripple.

Most Americans don't talk about it much, but when they are asked, a lot of them are tired of being told what to do by M.D./Ph.D. "experts" inside and outside of government who have set themselves up as the judge, jury and police enforcers of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. It is becoming apparent that, as if by the virtue of the letters written after their names and the titles given to them by their colleagues, medical doctors assume they have some God-given right to tell other people what to risk their lives and their children's lives for when making health care decisions.

Reading about Abraham's struggle for the human right to informed consent to medical treatment, I am reminded of what I wrote in the concluding chapter of the book "A Shot in the Dark" which I co-authored with Harris Coulter in 1985:

"We have been taught to trust and believe in our scientists and doctors, to believe they are among the brightest and best in our society. We have willingly given them our respect and accorded them wealth, privilege and power. And we have given them the right to tell us what to do with our children, because we always believed they knew what was best. We have treated them as gods, forgetting they are our fathers and mothers, wives and husbands, sons and daughters. They are us, with all the frailty and ignorance and susceptibility to temptation that is implicit in being human.

"Mothers and fathers in cities and towns across America are entering libraries and reading medical literature on all the vaccines and drugs that doctors prescribe. They are educating themselves about medicine, and in the process they are finding that it is by no means beyong their comprehension. It is becoming clear that their learning may save children's lives. This is an awakening that has been a long time coming, a necessary first step in making medical decisions ar shared responsibility between parents and doctors."

I knew in 1985 and know today that no medical doctor or Ph.D. "bioethicist" inside or outside of government has the moral right to take away someone elses' human right to informed consent to medical interventions which can injure or kill.. The human right to individual inviolability, to self determination in matters of life and death, is at the heart of what it means to be free in a nation that has always stood for freedom.

Forced Use of Anthrax Vaccine

In response to an article in Air Force Times (Gannett), July 10, 2006

Pentagon weighs options in anthrax vaccine suit
Latest hearing pushed back at government’s request

The fate of U.S. soldiers, who refused an order to be injected with the highly reactive anthrax vaccine, is shared by both U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan and the Department of Defense (DOD). Sullivan is the federal court judge in Washington, D.C. who issued an injunction in October 2004 halting mandatory anthrax vaccination of all US military personnel without obtaining voluntary, informed consent.

In February 2006, an appellate court asked Sullivan to decide whether DOD had the legal right to order that the experimental anthrax vaccine be injected into all troops for 14 years before the FDA licensed it for use against inhalation (weaponized) anthrax in December 2005. The DOD was supposed to answer Sullivan's questions at a scheduled June 27, 2006 federal court hearing but DOD requested postponement of the hearing.

Ever since the Gulf War began in 1991, millions of US soliders have been forced to get the experimental anthrax vaccine. There have been tens of thousands of reports of brain and immune system dysfunction, including death, among soldiers following vaccination. After seeing many of their colleagues die and become crippled after anthrax vaccination, more than 400 soldiers refused the vaccine and were court martialed, dishonorably discharged or otherwise forced to leave the military. If Sullivan rules that it was unlawful for the DOD to order troops to take an experimental anthrax vaccine without their informed consent, the soliders who have been punished for refusing to take the vaccine will be able to petition DOD for correction of their service records.

In March, 2005, the National Vaccine Information Center joined with groups representing vaccine injured soldiers and filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit John Doe et al v. Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) protesting the lack of informed consent protections in the military's mandatory anthrax vaccination program. The amicus brief specifically addressed the apparently contrived use of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) under Project Bioshield by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and DOD to get around Judge Sullivan's 2004 injunction that required the DOD to give soldiers voluntary, informed consent to anthrax vaccination. The DOD and DHHS claimed an "emergency" existed which required supsension of soldiers' right to informed consent to use of an experimental vaccine or drug.

In the amicus brief, NVIC and co-signers, pointed out that "FDA's history of regulatory malfesance with respect to anthrax vaccine, combined with the emergency use provision of the 2004 Bioshield Act, create the scenario for an anthrax vaccine disaster that affects a much larger segment of the U.S. population, and not just the military."

Federal legislation passed since September 11, 2001 has set the stage for forced use of experimental vaccines and drugs in both military and civilian settings whenever the politically appointed Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) declares an "emergency." There will be no recourse to appeal the emergency declaration to anyone, including the courts.. The cavalier use of the EUA by the Secretaries of DHHS and DOD in the case of forced anthrax vaccination of soldiers is a chilling example of what American citizens will face in the future.

Americans would do well to remember why the informed consent ethic is so important to fight for and protect. At the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg after World War II, medical doctors employed by the German state were put on trial for forcing experimental medical interventions on citizens. Although those medical doctors were tried for incomparable crimes against humanity, the Nuremberg Tribunal wisely understood that the only way to deter all forms of medical exploitation of vulnerable people was to require doctors inside and outside of government to adhere to the ethical principle of voluntary, informed consent. At the trial's end, the Tribunal issued "The Nuremberg Code" to serve as a guide to the ethical practice of medicine.

Vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy individual which can kill or injure that individual. Therefore, voluntary, informed consent to vaccination, in either a military or civilian setting, is a human right.