NAA Pieces of Hope Autism Conference in Mississippi
European Parliament Censures World Health Organisation Over the Swine Flu Fiasco but Continues to Swallow False Figures on Seasonal Flu

Mainstream Media Backs Supreme Court, Abandons Vaccine-Injured & Their Families

Supreme court By Anne Dachel

March 5, 2011, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial aptly called, Inoculating vaccine makers

(HERE) The essence of the article was that although it’s regrettable that vaccines damage some children, the Supreme Court did the right thing in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.

“The Supreme Court correctly shields drug firms from lawsuits over children who have suffered severe side effects from vaccines.”

The LA Times wasn’t alone in their praise for the Court’s action.  The New York Times had the op ed piece, U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Bruesewitz V. Wyeth A Win For Public Health (HERE) In the NY Times piece, Pfizer Executive Vice President and General Counsel Amy Schulman expressed sympathy for Hannah and reminded everyone that the special National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ‘provides for full consideration of the liability issues.’

The NYT pointed out that amicus briefs were filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. government in support of Wyeth.  The government said. “The Vaccine Act has resulted in ‘a robust federal framework that encourages the development of even safer vaccines and that provides compensation where Congress deemed it appropriate.’”

(This Times piece contrasts with an editorial that was published just last October (HERE) entitled, The Court’s Pre-emption Test.

There the Times raised serious questions about the right of the federal government to preempt state law. “At stake is the ability of states to protect their citizens, by regulating health, safety, the environment, and other primary interests and by giving victims of wrongdoing redress in court, as long as a state law doesn’t conflict with a federal law.”

Regarding the Bruesewitz case, the Times told us, “The case is about whether the family of a girl, who they said was badly injured by a vaccine, can sue the manufacturer in a state court. Or are they barred by a 24-year-old federal law that blocks this sort of lawsuit if ‘the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable’?”  In closing, the Times piece recommended, Where state efforts to protect citizens and compensate victims don’t conflict with federal law, pre-emption should not be used as a weapon to defeat them.”  It’s hard to reconcile this October article with the current editorial calling the Bruesewitz decision a win for public health.)

The Wall Street Journal had a not-too-subtle title to an opinion piece on February 23, 2011, Science 1, Lawyers 0.  (HERE) “Science and public health got a booster shot yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that vaccine makers can't be sued in state courts for injuries supposedly caused by their vaccines. The decision was an important strike against a scare campaign that has caused too many parents to put their children at risk by refusing to inoculate them.”

TIME Magazine on February 24, 2011, also endorsed the Wyeth win in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: What the Supreme Court Decision Means for Vaccines. (HERE) In this editorial, we’re reminded that just as vaccines don’t cause epilepsy, they don’t cause autism either. “Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines do not cause permanent disorders like autism and epilepsy, many parents cling to the myth. Why? Much of the confusion stems from timing: the first signs of epilepsy, other seizure disorders or autism often appear right about the time children receive many their routine vaccines. The co-occurrence is coincidental.”

Meredith Melnick at TIME seemingly wasn’t concerned when she wrote, “The DTP vaccine that Hannah received came from a batch associated with an unusually high number of adverse events, including one death and eight children who had convulsions. The Bruesewitzes took their case to a Vaccine Court in 1995, but were denied a settlement because residual seizure disorder wasn't one of the adverse events appearing on the Vaccine Table for DTP. The petition was dismissed in 2003.”

It looks like the federal courts, the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and major media sources are all satisfied that justice has been served.  However, lost in all the relief being expressed over the win for pharma is the fact that Hannah Bruesewitz was a perfectly healthy baby until her DPT vaccine at six months of age.  She will require constant care for the rest of her life. 

The NY Times, the LA TIMES, and the WSJ left out all mention of the damage that Hannah suffered.   In their glee over the victory for the vaccine makers, they omit the details given in this story in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  (HERE) "Hannah’s mother said that her daughter was 6 months old in 1992 at the time of her diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccination. Two hours later she developed seizures and has been diagnosed as having a seizure disorder that resulted from her DTP shot.

Still her case lost in Vaccine Court.  The reason why should have every American concerned. 

The Pittsburgh T-R showed us a photo of Hannah and they reported, “The Bruesewitzes filed a vaccine injury petition in April 1995 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A month earlier, the Department of Health and Human Services had removed seizure disorders from the Vaccine Injury Table. The table is used by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to determine whether people making claims have to prove vaccines caused their injuries. The program decided the Bruesewitzes hadn't proved their case, so the couple took their case to state court.

“Russell Bruesewitz, 62, said he suspects the government removed seizure disorders because the claims were costing the program too much money.

“The 1986 law forced the Bruesewitzes to prove the DTP shot caused the seizures even though they were an acknowledged side effect a month earlier. During a hearing, they weren't allowed to cross-examine government experts, who disputed their claim, Russell Bruesewitz said. And they weren't allowed to discover what documents, if any, the government relied on to remove seizure disorders from the side-effects table.

“After the program rejected their claim, the couple sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth Inc. -- now a subsidiary of Pfizer -- which had the case moved to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The judge in the case ruled the company was exempt from being sued; the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.”

And now the U.S. Supreme Court bars parents from damage suits in state court—even for a recognized vaccine injury. 

On March 3, 2011, Hannah’s father spoke at a press conference at the U.S. Supreme Court Building in DC.  There he said, “We are… parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who in a recently decided Supreme Court case was denied the opportunity to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for the vaccine she received at six months of age.  Almost 20 years ago, …literally two hours after receiving the vaccine, she started to seize uncontrollably, eventually regressing into brain damage and a lifetime of around-the-clock care.  While the court’s decision was obviously disappointing for us personally, the future concern for all parents faced with a vaccine decision should be ONE: What incentives are in place to assure manufacturers are offering the safest alternative? And TWO: What help is available if their worst fears are realized and a vaccine injury occurs after complying with mandated vaccination?   

“From our perceptive, the court’s decision answered both of these concerns with a definitive NONE.  Putting this in context, the Court’s decision has granted an immunity to drug manufacturers not afforded to any other industry. …”

So what went wrong?  Why is a program that was originally designed to provide swift, non-adversarial compensation now a litigant’s nightmare when a child is damaged by a vaccine?

The new book, Vaccine Epidemic (order HERE) makes it clear, the entire system—everything from how adverse events are reported to who gets compensated--is specifically designed to deny vaccines are harming kids and to pay off as few claims as possible. 

In the chapter, “A Doctor’s View of Vaccines and the Public Health,” by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, we see a far different system than one that ‘provides for full consideration of the liability issues,’ as described by pharma  spokesperson Amy Schulman. 

In the 1986 Vaccine Act, a reporting system for adverse events was created.  Dr. Tenpenny wrote that since 1999, this system “has received 11,000 to 12,000 individual reports per year.  However, this is a passive surveillance system.  That means it’s up to doctors, parents, and vaccine makers to file a report of damage.  Approximately 15 percent of cases reported are ‘an event that is fatal, life-threatening, requires or prolongs hospitalization, [or] results in permanent disability.’"

All that may not sound too bad, except for the fact that Dr. Tenpenny revealed that a former head of the FDA admitted that only about one percent of serious side effects are ever reported.  Doing the math, Tenpenny pointed out that the real damage total could equal 1,200,000 adverse events annually.

In the chapter, “The Right to Legal Redress,” Mary Holland, JD, and Robert Krakow, JD,  explained what parents can expect from a special interest court designed to protect an industry while pretending to address the legal rights of vaccine victims. 

“The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) represents the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in claims of vaccine-induced injury or death before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  Neither the vaccine industry nor doctors are defendants in the VICP.”

“The VICP has been a dismal failure.  Almost four out of five claimants lost in what was meant to be a petitioner-friendly administrative forum.  The tenor of the VICP proceedings is exceptionally hostile and adversarial—the exact opposite of what Congress intended.  Petitioners must litigate almost every case—almost no injuries are ‘on-table’ administrative claims anymore.  Though Congress intended cases to be resolved within a year, cases now take many years to litigate.” (The Bruesewitz case was filed in 1995 and not dismissed until 2003.)

“There is no judge, no jury, no right to require the adversary to provide information, and no formal rules of evidence and civil procedure.”

Instead of an experienced judge presiding, there’s a Special Master, who is really just a government lawyer appointed to preside over vaccine damage cases.  Parents are in reality up against the U.S. Department of Justice with an unlimited budget to use against claimants.  Vaccines are presumed safe unless proven guilty of damaging a child.  Parents have to show  the injury is related to the vaccine their child received.  It seems a child could collapse ten minutes after receiving a vaccine and it would be seen as a coincidence unless parents could prove a relationship.  This is because, as Holland and Krakow wrote, “The Court of Federal Claims assumes that once the FDA and CDC have approved vaccines, they are safe.  Therefore the government is not required to prove safety.”

Despite the hurdles and road blocks, the VICP has still paid out over $2 billion to more than 2,500 people damaged by vaccines.  Over 5,000 cases are still pending.

All of this is the reality behind the claim that vaccine injuries are redressed in this court.  The NY Times, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and TIME Magazine eagerly tell us justice was served by the Brueseswitz decision.  STILL NO ONE ASKS WHY A CHILD WHO DEVELOPS SEIZURES TWO HOURS AFTER RECEIVING A VACCINATION, GETS NOTHING.

They try to cover up this issue by assuring the public that his extra protection for Pharma ensures that the vaccine makers will keep on making vaccines.  They call it a win for public health and for the children of this country.  Underlying this is the expressed relief that this ruling makes it even less likely that any of the thousands of pending autism-vaccine cases will even be heard.

So we’re back to square one.  Every attempt to deny autism is vaccine-related is being made.  Autism is never a problem, non-vaccinating parents are. 

News stories are quick to dismiss parents who dare to make the claim that their children were harmed by vaccines as being part of the “anti-vaccination movement,” regardless of the fact that THEY HAD THEIR KIDS DUTIFULLY VACCINATED. 

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center and one of the principle supporters of the original National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act in 1986 said this about the Bruesewitz decision, ‘Had we ever known or imagined that this day would come, we never would have supported the legislation in the '80s.’

She summed up the horrible truth for parents, "'As of today, you're on your own.’  

Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Benedetta

Post script:
Oh dear,
One of the presidents of the United States, Ronald Reagan, Himself - already had a vaccine injury and suffered alzieheimers - but noone put two and two together.

Well, I guess we are just doomed!

Benedetta

Well, the numbers will only continue to go up. No matter what I have done, or have not done in the past quarter of a century --NOTHING has made any difference --- it just still keeps going up and up --- even adults are getting injured.

My gosh it has spread through the whole society
Want to go to school, want to continue to go to highschool - got to have some.
Want to be a nurse then you have to get the Hep B
Got an injury cut while in a clean, white lab making computer parts got to get that tetanus shot (AKA DTaP).
Factories offer free vaccines.
Stores offer free vaccines.
That teenage daughter just might decide to be a whore, or have a relationship with a whoremonger so just in case better get that vaccine.

So I just figure that evenutally it will get the kids or grandkids of the president of the United States, or some one that is high enough to matter - meanwhile the rest of us lower human life forms just live with it.

Nick

It is an insult to even propose aspersions against Barbara Loe Fisher. It is akin to suggesting Rosa Parks hindered civil rights.

JenB

“The Bruesewitzes filed a vaccine injury petition in April 1995 with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A month earlier, the Department of Health and Human Services had removed seizure disorders from the Vaccine Injury Table."

I remember reading somewhere that autism used to be a table injury as well, and also removed. I can't locate the reference though.

Sandy Gottstein

My personal feeling is we need to put our differences aside, regardless of any merit there might be. We face a formidable foe and can't afford to be divided.

Sandy Gottstein

How many coincidences does it take to make a light bulb go off?

Balanced Opinion

There is a positive benefit ... Drug Companies will NO longer be an integral part of the Vaccine Court decisions or the process....quite frankly they will no longer be a directy party in the proceedings....

Gone will be the millions spent on paid expert testimony ...

It may just be the case that awarding damages will be far easier without the "blurring" caused by pharmaceutical companies.

nhokkanen

Boggles my mind how journalists have turned from watchdogs into lapdogs, looking for excuses to maintain status quo and positioning themselves as public health mouthpieces.

Kevin

Those in control of the flow of information, control the masses.

We are all in trouble until we can circumvent the flow.

Teresa Conrick


I, too support Barbara Loe Fisher. Throwing rocks now, in a 25 year retrospect, is not helpful. In good faith and in earnest support, she worked to help the vaccine-injured. It was not she who has stealthily changed the TABLE and made parents and injured as adversaries.

Let's move forward and change what has been broken and neglected by our government. All branches have let us down.

AutismGrandma

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Right to Poison

The Root Cause in the Bigger Picture:

The Pharmaceutical Industry spends $100 million a year to lobby congressmen. This is the root core of the problem with our government. Big Industry simply buys what they want with no regard for the public's welfare. Obama stated that he wants to eliminate the lobby system so that laws can reflect the public will instead of Big Business control, but how is that ever going to happen when politicians all benefit financially from the lobby system? Are they really ever going to vote for that???!!!

Just one example of so many: When the ocean was being massively poisoned by the Gulf Oil Spill, I was thinking about one of my friends who was a professional diver on the Gulf oil rigs. He told me 20 years ago that the divers couldn't believe that this hadn't happened already way back then. Those divers see those rigs underneath the ocean and they saw the risks and dangers. According to my friend most professional oil rig deep sea divers are opposed to offshore drilling even though they make a living from it, because they can see the dangers and have a great respect for ocean life which is intimately connected to human life. Many environmental groups opposed offshore drilling, however the Oil Industry always gets what they want because they have so much money.

In the Bigger Picture, the Oil Industry gets permission and the legal right to poison our oceans, sealife, and by extention human life, the Chemical Industry has the legal right to poison our food, water and air, the Pharmaceutical Industry has the legal right to poison everyone with toxic drugs because this is a $650 Billion Dollar per year business, and the Vaccine Industry gets the legal right to keep poisoning children as well as adult human beings with vaccines because this is a $20 Billion dollar industry in America.

Universal Legalized Poisoning is the plain and simple results of

"The Golden Rule": THE ONE WITH THE GOLD RULES.

Erika

I do wonder why we always seem to be in shock when the written media covers something that does NOT support us.

It is always going to be that way, lets not forget that the written media market, especially newspapers, is only sustained on subsidy.

Birgit Calhoun

Ever since the Supreme Court decided in favor of Citizens United, i.e. that corporations are like people, the handwriting has been on the wall. Corporations are more important than people. With the current make-up of the Supreme Court, there is not much hope especially since Elena Kagan keeps recusing herself. Let's hope writing letters to our elected officials on behalf of suffering children is effective.

Stagmom supports Barb

Barb was the Mom of a vax injured son. And she forged ahead in utterly virgin territory. NVIC is the go to source for information. Her son is a functioning adult. She could have walked away and told us all to pound salt.

The world was completely different in 1986 - and we know that corporations can sniff out and create loopholes faster than Charlie Sheen can pay a new Goddess for sex. The system USED to be for severe diseases - now it's bloated with "never get sick" vaccines. I also stand in support of Barbara.

KIM

Donna L.

I'm with Bob. I shudder to think of where the vaccine safety movement would be today without all of the work Barbara Loe Fisher has done. I can't even fathom how ill-informed/under-informed we would all be, and I want no part in raking her over the coals.

Autism and Anti-Vaccine Advocate


You are right, Concerned Mom,

Per the link you sent, it says she worked with Congress to write the law below.............

"As of today, you're on your own," said Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center.

Fisher and other parents who worked with Congress to write the law were promised an alternative to the court system that would allow for quick and fair resolutions of their claims while enabling them to go to court if the alternative system didn't work, she said.

"Had we ever known or imagined that this day would come, we never would have supported the legislation in the '80s," she said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_724106.html#ixzz1GEmRfxBO

Per.........

"To be honest, it makes me wonder now about Fisher and the National Vaccine Information Center much like how one wonders about orgs like Autism Speaks and folks like Alison Singer."

It doesn't make me wonder. I don't bother with any of them....the whole circle is a scam on families.

Bob Moffitt

In my humble opinion .. I seriously doubt ANYONE .. in the last 20 years .. has done more to promote public awareness that vaccines are at best unreliable .. at worst .. extremely dangerous .. than Barbara Loe Fisher.

Did she make a mistake to place her "trust" in Congress and our public health agencies to "do the right thing"? Yes.

But .. then .. I clearly remember writing to various mainstream autism organizations .. expressing my own outrage they were supporting .. in the words of Bernard Rimland .. the PRETEND COMBAT AUTISM ACT.

But .. hey .. that's just me .. so .. if you know of someone who had done MORE over the last 20 years than Barbara Loe .. I sure would like to know who the heck they are?

Steph M

I'm with Stan. He speaks wise words.

No more Mr. Niceguy.

Stan

"Vaccines are presumed safe unless proven guilty of damaging a child. Parents have to show the injury is related to the vaccine their child received."

No they don't, technically, now. Because the Supreme Court, in all its august majesty, has ruled that "vaccines are unavoidably unsafe". So the default position has become that they are presumed unsafe. So now the Congress needs to rule on just how unsafe they will allow a product to be transported in interstate commerce (thus needing by necessity to revisit the NVICP Act). And parents have a case to make that they should be as safe AS POSSIBLE; and hold the manufacturers to that necessity. Otherwise the manufacturers have, no longer, any incentive to make their vaccines safer. And the corporate world breathes a sigh of relief. And The People should, by rights, get angry. Very angry. Enough, to do something about it, that sends a very clear message to Congress: Act on this legitimate grievance. Or you're out of there.

Stan

The only reason that the vaccine information adherents in the 80s backed off from their awareness and justice-seeking campaign was that the NVICP Act in '86 was going to allow them access to the state courts for potential redress, but only after they had exhausted their chances in the Vaccine Court. That agreement was entered into in good faith by The People. It has now been clearly annulled, and the deck stacked blatantly and arrogantly against them. The People need to camp on the doorsteps of their representatives in Congress until they have a redress of their grievance in this appalling matter. That 'camping' to include a major campaign in the alternative, non-corporate media on the issue. SafeMinds has already initiated a letter-writing campaign to Congress, petitioning for a change in the NVICP Law to more clearly define its terms, in allowing parents to sue in state courts, for an unsafe product, as a last resort. Roll up, roll up, and send those letters. And make those phone calls. And visit those offices. And never give up.

This is injustice personified. A revolution is in order. Let's see what form it takes - or has to take.

Concerned Mom

To Autism and Anti-Vaccine Advocate,
Barbara Loe Fisher also helped Congress to write the law according to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_724106.html

"As of today, you're on your own," said Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center.Fisher and other parents who worked with Congress to write the law were promised an alternative to the court system that would allow for quick and fair resolutions of their claims while enabling them to go to court if the alternative system didn't work, she said.

"Had we ever known or imagined that this day would come, we never would have supported the legislation in the '80s," she said.

To be honest, it makes me wonder now about Fisher and the National Vaccine Information Center much like how one wonders about orgs like Autism Speaks and folks like Alison Singer.

Autism and Anti-Vaccine Advocate


What does anybody expect from the Lame-Stream (MainStream) Media???? Please!!!

By the way, to his credit President Ronald Reagan was against the 1986 law.

Per...........

"Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center and one of the principle supporters of the original National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act in 1986 said this about the Bruesewitz decision, ‘Had we ever known or imagined that this day would come, we never would have supported the legislation in the '80s.’"

Barbara Loe Fisher knew about and supported the 1986 law.

Zofie

Anybody surprised by such appalling behavior of the mainstream media? After all they belong to the same corporate mafias of parasites and vultures, which destroy American and world children. This destruction is their business.

John Stone

Hi Marie-Anne

Unfortunately, vaccine damage denial seems to be one of the fundamental rules of admission to the ruling class: whatever anyone knows they only very occasionally speak out of turn, and journalists even if they are not part of that class are controlled by editors, who are. It is surprising already given the level of damage how social control still works, but it does. I remember people saying this a decade ago, but it has happened many times over since (in the UK I know of several cases among highest-ranking politicians and journalists, but they never come out, or only so faintly that no one notices), and it never impacts. Perhaps one day it will, but the more likely scenario is that increasingly they will simply use privilege, wealth and influence to dodge "the draft" in the war against disease.

John

cmo

I am not sure why Congress was able to get into "Court business" and set up the Vaccine Court in the first place.
Their efforts eliminated the 7th Amendment to the Constitution for thousands of damaged children, many under age five...

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

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.


Many of these children lose the ability to speak for themselves, and cannot use the 1st Amendment.

* First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Marie-Anne Denayer, M.D.

The rate at which vaccine-related complications is climbing, the writers of the pieces applauding the supreme court decision are bound to have family members adversely affected by one inoculation or another. That will make them change their tune.

Menwhile, our kids and families have ben betrayed by the system that was originally meant to protect them. What a shame

Erik Nanstiel

After reading those quotes... I just cannot FATHOM how the authors or their puppeteers have the audacity to think the public won't see through the glaring flaws in such logic. That it isn't industry propaganda. If readers have HALF a brain, they're going to think "WHOAH, wait just one g-damned minute! WHAT???"

Such blatant propaganda will serve us... because they're getting worse at hiding their agenda.

Bob Moffitt

Common sense suggests .. the Supreme Court decision to protect an "industry" instead of the "people" .. is in direct conflict with the US Constitution the majority of justices are sworn to uphold.

We can also take comfort in knowing that "common sense" will eventually prevail in the only court that really matters .. the "court of public opinion".

In the meantime .. this decision may prove to be the catalyst that makes the already widespread and growing numbers of parents hesitant to vaccinate their child according to the recommended and approve schedule .. even more so.

julie

These MSM articles always cite "overwhelming scientific proof" that vaccines don't cause autism, yet nobody ever says what this "proof" consists of. Hopefully there are some parents out there who can read between the lines.

Mary

Thanks for the summary of mainstream media because nobody else reads it anymore.

John Stone

It is dismaying to see how every feature of normal political reference, and any vestige of natural justice or just plain good sense, has been removed from this debate. What has happened is that a far reaching political decision has been reduced to the dignity of a minor legal technicality. The citizen has no rights and few means of representation: this is not why the Americal revolution was fought, and it is a lot worse than George III. We now have fawning class of newspapermen, lackey congressmen and judges. This is the modern state in operation in our burnt out liberal democracies, with all substantial political issues decided by quasi-faceless bureaucracy operating hand in glove with their industrial business cronies. Even in the mid-80s there was some understanding left of what treacherous political ground this was. Now every one in the public eye is clueless, or rather pretending to be.

Autism Uncle

Anne, Thanks for your tireless energy. I'd bet my old pick-up truck that the Supreme Court Justices have never seen (or were presented in arguments) America's true, ongoing Weapon of Mass Destruction, the Child Immunization Schedule.

Here it is, pass it on, pass it on!

http://www.ndhealth.gov/Immunize/Documents/Providers/Forms/2010%20Childhood%20Imm.pdf

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)