Meet the New Boss

Sebelius out, Burwell in. With the latter's Gates Foundation background, maybe she'll reach out to have people concerned about vaccine injury silenced. Oh wait, that already happened. What next? -- Hey April! Be aware of THIS, from 2003: "The Autism...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« Dachel Media Review: Football and Signs | Main | Weekly Wrap: Standing Up for Yates »

Dear Emily Willingham, Dorit Reiss, Christopher Hickie and other Vaccine Bullies

LetterBy Laura Hayes

Dear Emily Willingham, Dorit Reiss, and Christopher Hickie, (or, insert name of any other vaccine bully here),

Do you believe anyone has the right to be exempt from vaccines? Does the Constitution protect the individual’s right to refuse a vaccine?

What about under these circumstances?

1. If one child in a family experienced one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting that child and his/her siblings from any future vaccines?

2. If a parent had one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

3. If a parent witnessed a close relative (e.g. nephew, niece, first cousin, etc.) have one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

4. If a parent has had a child die from a vaccine(s), would you be okay with that parent exempting their remaining and/or future children from vaccines?

5. If a parent witnessed a friend’s or neighbor’s child having one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?



6. If a parent had a child vaccinated for a particular disease, and then the child contracted that disease post-vaccination, would you be okay if that parent decided to exempt their children from any future vaccines?

7. If a parent had a child vaccinated and the child then lost his speech, lost his interest in his family members and others, lost his play skills, and developed odd behaviors, would you be okay if that parent decided to exempt their children from any future vaccines? 8. If a parent formerly worked with a child who had had one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

9. If a parent has a sibling who experienced one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

10. If a parent has a parent who experienced one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

11. If a parent is a doctor who has witnessed one or more patients experiencing one or more adverse reactions to one or more vaccines, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

12. If a parent believes that vaccines are an abomination to God, whom they believe to be the Creator of them and their children, and whom they worship above all else, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

13. If a parent believes that sacrificing children and/or harming children is against their personal religious beliefs (it is a fact that vaccines have the power to both harm and kill), would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

14. If a parent has independently researched vaccines, possibly to a level that exceeds that of any healthcare practitioner they might see, and is confident that they have reached the best decision for their family, would you be okay with that parent exempting their children from vaccines?

15. Please read this woman’s personal account of her own experience with vaccine injury: http://sanevax.org/gardasil-worst-thing-ever-happened/ If, by the grace of God, she is healthy enough and able to have children one day, would you be okay if she exempted her children from vaccines?

In any of the above circumstances, would you be okay with that parent being able to exempt their children from vaccines without first being forced to pay for, submit to, and endure a lecture of personal opinion by a state-specified healthcare practitioner?

Dorit, Emily, and Christopher, (or, insert name of other vaccine bully here), you will be hard-pressed to find any parent who is a citizen of the U.S.A. who does not fit into 1 of the first 14 categories. Do you think it is their right, or yours, using the agent of government, to decide whether or not their child is vaccinated, especially in light of the fact that our vaccine schedule is a completely untested one, that individual vaccines have not been appropriately or adequately tested, and that there has never been a study comparing both the short and long-term health and development outcomes of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated (although a number of informal surveys and assessments have been done, each clearly showing that non-vaccinated children are far healthier and developing far more normally than their peers)?

Sincerely,

Laura Hayes

Parent of Vaccine-Injured Children, who WOULD NEVER, EVER ALLOW ANOTHER VACCINE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY CHILD OF HERS, and who wishes she had been given informed consent, instead of being lied to, before her children were vaccinated with dangerous, toxic vaccines which nearly killed one of her children, and which left him permanently and severely disabled. Must go now to wash his face, brush and floss his teeth, make sure he goes to the bathroom, and read him a Sesame Street or Arthur book before bed, even though he’s nearly 20 years old.

Comments

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

Jude,
If you read Dr. Suzanne Humphries' book Dissolving Illusions, you'll learn how much more dangerous many diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases like measles and pertussis, were in the nineteenth century. Improved sanitation does not help control air-borne diseases like these, but improved nutrition and less crowded living conditions do. In addition, the diseases themselves have evolved to become much milder, so that measles is very rarely dangerous in well-nourished populations, and pertussis is only dangerous to a few of the youngest infants who catch it, who cannot be protected either by vaccinating them or everyone around them: their immune systems have not developed enough, and the acellular version is extremely ineffective (though still dangerous) in everyone. My thrice vaccinated baby got it at 8 months and gave it to me: it was fatiguing and long-lasting, but not dangerous in either of us, as it usually is not. In 1960, a million Americans caught measles, and 450 died of it, a mortality rate of 0.045. It is not a disease to be feared, only respected and adequately cared for.
47,500 Indian children in 2011 were paralyzed after having received several polio vaccines, doctors there thought the paralysis was caused by the vaccine. Incidence and mortality from polio had plunged before the vaccine program started, and polio disappeared from countries that did not vaccinate as well as from ones that did. Children who had recently gotten a DPT shot had much higher rates of polio than those that hadn't, so that DPT vaccination was suspended during outbreaks.
For those of us who have suffered serious vaccine damage in our families, it is not the open and shut case we also grew up believing that it was. Now an extremely high percentage of children has suffered brain damage or developed autoimmune disease as a result of their vaccines. One in nine has sometimes fatal asthma (and fatality rates have increased over the past decade), one in 50 has peanut allergy, one in 25 autism, one in 10 an allergy, one in 450 diabetes, nearly all of them from vaccine reactions. Very few who contracted the vaccine-preventable diseases would have died of them: I have had measles, rubella, chickenpox, pertussis, many flus, rotavirus, and hep A, and none was a dangerous case. I have MS from a reaction to the mercury-containing tetanus vaccine and my daughter has autism and bowel disease from reactions to the hep-B vax at birth and the DTaP booster. I walk dragging my left foot since I had an MS attack that paralyzed my left arm and leg for over a month. You have to understand that the balance has changed to that for many, perhaps most, the vaccines preent more risk than the diseases. And no, most of the medical personnel are not going to agree with that, but scroll down on Age of Autism, read the six years of articles and comments, and you'll see why they do not agree and why they are not to be trusted.

@Jude, not trying to be offensive, but just wanting to put some facts/observations out to consider as today's healthcare is very reticent to link correlating adverse events to pharmaceutical products, especially vaccinations, not so much with correlating positive outcomes.

Are you aware of the poor level of efficacy the flu shot has demonstrated (just for preventing flu strains, not researched for overall health impact) in children?

Are you aware of one study that found higher hospitalization rates in flu vaccine recipients with asthma? Another has found a higher risk for respiratory infections in flu vaccine recipients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22525386
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139

Are you aware there are studies that find higher asthma risk linked to vaccination? This one from the top of my head: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561

I recently heard a PSA in Southern California claim that some form of asthma now affects 1 in 13 children and asthma accounts for 1/3 of emergency room visits.

Are you aware that other factors may have been involved in paralytic polio cases (pesticide use, tonsillectomy) which in the epidemic years affected 1 in 2700? Note paralysis cases, of which seriousness I do not want to diminish though 85% were not classified as long-term, increased without official explanation over a twenty year period to reach that rate of 1 in 2700. Autism has increased over the past twenty years to the latest rate of 1 in 50 children. The percentage of recovery is unknown, but not viewed as common at this point.

Autism is not the only neurological or immune mediated disorder increasing in our highly vaccinated youth, but the official response to these chronic health and neurological epidemics is mostly to portray mystification and to exonerate vaccines where suspected.

Jude,

You are comparing now to a time when there was poor sanitation. Many of these diseases have been proven to decline before vaccination. See nephrologist Suzanne Humphries' book, "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History". See also the Canary Party video posted on this site today, "Gardasil injury: Not a coincidence", and their other video, "Do Vaccines Cause Autism?".

Many medical advances have proven to be not so great. Hormone replacement therapy was supposed to prevent heart disease in women and was later found to be killing them, thalidomide was prescribed to help pregnant women sleep and was later discovered to thwart normal fetal development, pregnant women were x-rayed up until the 1980's when it was finally stopped, all of the pharmaceutical giants have been convicted of criminal fraud and have paid many billions in fines in the last decade for hiding negative research and marketing drugs that they knew were dangerous, leading to untold numbers of deaths and disability. So called medical advances should always be scrutinized by the public, but especially when being offered by a for profit health care system. Vaccines are a multi-multi-billion dollar branch of Pharma http://www.pharmpro.com/articles/2012/01/expanding-vaccine-market. Don't forget that this is a business.

It is an indisputable fact that vaccines have harmed and killed many. The so called safety research does not stand up to scrutiny and the cases of injury are not tracked the way they should be. Why doesn't the government approach all of the "emotional" parents and ask to study their children?

I lead cemetery tours in my hometown, and they make it apparent that we are so much better off living in a world with vaccinations. My great-uncle died from polio, which no one needs to fear now. My grandfather was one of the luckier polio victims, since he was able to walk with a limp the rest of his life. As a responsible parent, I make sure that my kids not only have all of their vaccinations, but also get an annual flu shot (one son has asthma). I don't understand why people accept many,many medical advances but reject vaccines which have saved millions of lives worldwide. As a parent, your best bet is to investigate what *science* says about vaccinations, not what emotional parents say. Of course, my emotion runs the other way--without vaccinations and other scientific advances, and based on childhood diseases that my kids contracted, I think there's a good chance that 2 out of 3 would now be dead.

Powerful and thought-provoking! I will be sharing this far and wide!

Cynthia, I find it interesting that some things considered harmless which occur after a vaccine are acknowledged as vaccine-related, but anything harmful is not.

For example, fainting after Gardasil - no big deal! But brain damage after Gardasil, just a coincidence.

Yes, vaccines can cause "febrile" seizures, but those are harmless! But an ongoing seizure disorder is just a coincidence - would have happened anyways.

Swelling at the injection site - no problem! But inflammatory or autoimmune disorder, just a coincidence.

The answer to all your questions is No.

According to accepted belief:
All incidences occurring after a vaccine are coincidence or necessary for the greater good. So there are essentially no reasons not to vaccinate. According to your bullies.

I have found that lately it does not matter if a "doctor" agrees with our side. Even doctors are not free to practice the way they wish. Their license is hanging in the balance.

In the last 30 years of looking at the vaccine controversy, I've seen their arguments change in frightening ways. There used to be reasons not to vaccinate. Increasingly vaccines are looked at as totally safe, even a treatment. Scary.

Linda,
She already wrote an article that's on Shot of Prevention now, about how getting rid of Vaccine Court would hurt consumers (!).

Friends, the behaviour of Reiss, Orac and Hickie is predatory. How do they function at their other regular jobs?
I notice lately that the pet theory of genetics seems to have been minimized (can they see that the public is not buying it?) and there has been a strange appropriation of some of our issues such as ' tobacco science.'

I want to add to what I just said...When an illicit drug pusher targets an individual, it isn't just the subsequent ingestion of the drug that is the crime. The predatory behavior is just as if not more dangerous.

Willingham, Reiss and Hickie, et al are out of control crazy. They have zero appreciation for any individual's right to determine what drugs they will or not take and their aggression in fighting to overwhelm any opposition to their ideology is extremely dangerous.

We not only need to be protected from vaccines, we need to be protected from these fanatics who are far more dangerous than any infectious disease.

I should mention that I wrote this in response to Emily Willingham's article in Forbes online this week regarding CA's new Personal Beliefs Exemption law, which goes into effect on Jan. 1st: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/11/04/could-california-law-to-boost-vaccine-uptake-end-up-reducing-it/
Dorit Reiss and Christopher Hickie immediately posted comments. My comment is on pg. 6.

Reiss is to vaccines what The Grocery Manufacturer's Association is to GMOs. It is her job, whether self assigned or paid, to protect the vaccine business' bottom line. This is the basis of her interest in these proceedings. She is a one dimensional character focused on forging ahead with an agenda regardless of how flawed and regardless of how many are hurt by its implementation. Since the Vaccine Court's purpose is to serve her master, expect to see her in full battle mode to protect it.

nhokkenen, re. 'Concerns raised at the Dec 4th hearing?!'
What on earth would they be concerned about? The fact that some people do have vaccine side effects serious enough to be compensated for? Do they think this is not right??

Dorit Reiss, defender of vaccine mediocrity and program corruption, opines on the Shot of Prevention blog. http://shotofprevention.com/2013/11/08/congressional-briefing-attempts-to-discredit-vaccine-injury-compensation/

Take note: "Every Child By Two is galvanizing support among their large base of vaccine advocates while also working with various national immunization organizations to address any concerns raised at the December 4th hearing, They will be following these concerns, educating congressional leaders about the benefits of vaccines and keeping you informed via future posts."

EpiGuy and Reiss display gross ethical deficits, with no understanding of the suffering caused by vaccine adverse events. Such heartless attitudes toward fellow humans have no place in vaccine policymaking.

I am 80 years old and never had a flu vaccination nor have I ever had the flu. I don't necessarily recommend that approach but my primary care doctor has said that I seem to have an extraordinarily strong immune system and that I don't need to get a flu shop if I don't want to.

Thank you Epiguy, you just proved the bully point perfectly. You have nothing of mature value to say, so just call people names instead.

A bully chimes in to share his amusement and to fling a few insults to further prove his identity. How nice. Now, EpiGuy, do the world a favor and crawl back under your rock.

Thank you Laura, and I'm so sorry about your son.

I learned recently how PMS has been made into a serious illness and how a certain percentage of women (as large a percentage as can be achieved, no doubt) are deemed to have a more serious form, PMDD, that is treated with SSRIs, either for 2 weeks a month or continuously. Of course, there are no tests for this diagnosis - it is based on symptoms. If this is even a condition, it is likely mostly a result of inappropriate diet, but of course, drugs are pushed on whatever lucrative market presents itself or can be manufactured. Back when I was in that loop, menstruation was not an illness. To see normal young women of childbearing age drugged like this, with all the possible harm that can come to themselves and their future children as a result, is beyond my comprehension. The vaccine bullies fit into a bigger picture of drug pushers peddling whatever drugs they can. We are a world under siege.

This blog is hilarious. Whenever I need a good laugh I just come on here and read the insane conspiracy theory/quack "science" you tin foil hatters come up with. Well done again!

Thanks, Laura, for spotlighting vaccine bullies' avoidance of experience-based questions -- medical and ethical -- particularly from vaccine injury victims' families. Their apathetic distancing from the suffering of fellow human beings is profoundly chilling.

That lack of direct contact with actual product users is a reflection of government and industry's hit-and-run approach to vaccination. Health care consumers should be extremely wary of any bureaucratic program that pushes forward without looking backward, refusing to accept data about product problems and failures.

When nothing is learned and changed regarding vaccine improvement, lives are continually risked... and lost.

Non-mandated consumer products demonstrating such dreadful performance would not last long in a free market economy. Sadly most consumers believe the relentless waves of industry PR. Or if they've dodged the vaccine injury bullet, they don't care if it hits the person behind them.


As far as possible, I believe that we should say "Invasive medical procedure" rather than vaccination. Isn't it really more accurate?

Yes sharing on autism mothers on facebook, good luck with mire writing. It needs to be said.

What a great way to spell out just WHY so many people are hesitant, scared, or adamantly opposed to following the outrageous "One Size Fits All" vaccine schedule in the U.S.

The fact that pharma minions have been reduced to vilifying and bullying intelligent consumers shows they are out of arguments.

First, it was "You must do it to save your child!"

When that myth was debunked by independent science and thousands of parents who witnessed their child get hurt or killed by the vaccine that was supposed to save them, it became:

"You must do it to protect the herd!"

When that myth was debunked with the proof that there is no such thing as "herd immunity" in a vaccinated population, they argued:

"You must do it to protect those who are unable to be vaccinated, due to health issues!"

But my son was never tested for any allergies, genetic polymorphisms, mitochondrial disorders or immune dysfunction issues before they shot him up with every vaccine that came down the pike. I don't know of any babies who were tested for these issues before they were vaccinated. So how do they even know WHO are the individuals who should not be vaccinated?

Now they are reduced to just being bullies, and calling people who make thoughtful decisions about when and what to inject into their unique and precious babies "Anti-Vaccine!" They use this term with the same hatred and vitriol as "Anti-American!"

But even the bullying isn't working. Consumers have become more educated, have seen the damage with their own eyes, and aren't buying it anymore. So we need to brace ourselves for the next push:

"You must do it because we have taken away your right to choose how, when and whether to be vaccinated!"

Laura,

Thank you!

This is good because many of those bullies are ok in the abstract to say things like, well vaccines do have some risks but they need to realize that an ever increasing number (along with increased schedule) are showing reactions. One doc I saw recently on a blog was all frothing at the mouth about people needing mandated flu shots. I would never have any of my kids have those after seeing my grandmother experience GB and be so disabled for months. It's not a risk I am willing to take for low efficacy.

Hi Laura,

This is very good - it makes the point that these are people who are misbehaving in very unpleasant ways. It should not be that children have to be sacrificed for the alleged public good, and these people - with all their arrogant faux-rectitude and sarcasm - are trying to sweep the damage from public gaze. The day is getting closer when this revolting charade will be thoroughly exposed. They are just there to intimidate, confuse and bully.

It is quite clear with Willingham and Reiss, that whatever brief they hold their actual knowledge is extremely superficial and flawed.

John

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.