By Laura Hayes
Last week, I respectfully posed 3 questions to Mr. Kennedy in the comments section of an AoA article, as he continues to be an active voice across the country speaking about mercury in vaccines, corruption at the CDC, and the removal of our right to a jury trial following vaccine-induced injury and vaccine-induced death here in America. I am hoping he will answer these questions soon.
The questions I posed are not just for Mr. Kennedy, however. They are questions for every American.
Here are the original questions I posed to Mr. Kennedy:
Do you support vaccine mandates?
Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?
Do you support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?
This many years into Mr. Kennedy's involvement with: the many poisons, toxins, and health-destroying ingredients in vaccines; the documented rampant failures of vaccines worldwide; the vast corruption underlying our nation's vaccine program from manufacture to mandate; the many chronic illnesses and developmental disorders now plaguing our children in never-seen-before numbers, despite our spending more per person on "health care" than ever before, and at the same time as the number of vaccines given has more than tripled; and perhaps most importantly, the endless and countless reports from parents worldwide about the HORRORS that have befallen their children post-vaccination...it would certainly seem that Mr. Kennedy would be ready and willing to answer these 3 questions without reservation, as all else hinges on the answers to these 3 questions.
The ONLY way one can protect oneself and one's children from the known and yet-to-be-discovered dangers of current vaccines, and from the dangers of newly-approved and mandated vaccines in the future, is through EDUCATED FREE WILL. Without the unfettered and unrestricted ability to decline vaccinations, this medical tyranny will not only continue, it will increase.
Not only is educated free will the only way to protect oneself and one's children from vaccine harm, it is the only way we are going to be able to change the immoral, unethical, and deplorable behavior of big corporations and powerful government agencies. We must restore our right to say "yes please" or "no thank you" to any product and to any government recommendation. We must be able to vote with our dollars in order to change corporate behavior and we must be able to refuse government recommendations, as each has the potential to be faulty, dangerous, or not personally healthy or beneficial for ourselves or our children.
It is also imperative to remember that the maximum legal infringement on a person's rights that a government can morally and ethically impose with regard to infectious disease is quarantine.
Furthermore, self-quarantine should be required of anyone who receives a live-virus vaccine since clinical trials have shown that people can and do shed the live viruses for which they were vaccinated, up to 4 weeks post-vaccination (maybe longer).
If this logical and public health-protecting step were required, far fewer people would opt for live-virus vaccines, which would then change the behavior of the vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies. These companies would then be forced to produce inactivated vaccines to replace the live-virus ones, said to be safer but not as effective as live-virus vaccines, which is why inactivated vaccines include toxic, inflammation-causing adjuvants. If consumers were then properly informed of the risks of the adjuvants used, they might not opt for inactivated vaccines, either. Once again, unfettered and unrestricted personal choice would affect the behavior of the vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies.
It is easy to see how a regulatory agency acting appropriately by requiring self-quarantine for those who choose known-to-cause-contagion, live-virus vaccines, in tandem with the agency's and doctor's provision of full disclosure of all known vaccine risks and dangers, would drive changes in the marketplace that would make for a safer world with healthier people. We do not have that right now.
If we Americans are not in full and unabashed support of individual and parental rights, so that we can exercise our educated free will, then we can kiss our free society goodbye...and say hello to tyranny and fascism. Currently, we are on the fast track to both tyranny and fascism. As Kevin Barry so eloquently asks numerous times in his excellent book Vaccine Whistleblower, who will have the moral courage to do what is needed right now?
Mr. Kennedy, AND everyone else involved in this fight to save our children and ourselves from this vaccine holocaust and current medical tyranny, needs to possess the wisdom and find the moral courage to boldly and confidently answer these 3 questions in the only way that will restore our God-given, fundamental-to-all-humans, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms.
I will be happy to go first. Here are my answers:
Do I support vaccine mandates? An emphatic and unequivocal NO.
Do I support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination? A resounding YES.
Do I support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? YES, immediately.
Even if one were to remain fiercely pro-vaccine, that should not keep one from answering the questions as answered above. Banning vaccine mandates does not ban vaccines...anyone who wants them can still get them. Supporting individual and parental rights to decline vaccination should not be a problem for anyone who is pro-vaccine, because once again, they can still get the vaccines they want, and because if they are pro-vaccine, one can assume that they believe vaccines will keep them safe, so they should feel protected. And, one can still be pro-vaccine even if the 1986 Act is repealed, as it would afford them more protection under the law should they or their loved ones experience vaccine-induced injuries or death.
The new mantra our community needs to embrace, publicize, and socialize is: ALL ROADS LEAD TO THE FULL RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND PARENTAL RIGHTS.
We have already successfully made the case that vaccines contain dangerous, poisonous, and health-destroying ingredients, that vaccine failure is rampant, that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and increasingly common, and that vaccine-related fraud and corruption are obscene. Now we must focus our efforts on fully restoring our individual and parental rights, which includes banning vaccine mandates and repealing the egregious 1986 Act. Anything else is futile.
Written by Laura Hayes, mother of vaccine-injured children, one of whom suffered catastrophic injuries post-vaccination resulting in what doctors like to call “Autism", versus the iatrogenic harm that it was. Laura is determined that we fully restore individual and parental rights in this country, including the right to decline vaccinations without government interference. She is also determined that we repeal the egregious 1986 NCVIA which has resulted in incalculable harm to the children of the U.S.A., and beyond.
In addition to my original questions to Mr. Kennedy, I posted 6 additional comments that might be of interest. Here they are, newest to oldest:
Thank you for joining the discussion that is very important for our community to have.
When Mr. Kennedy first entered the foray, "kicking and screaming" as he likes to say, it was because he learned that vaccines contained mercury, an environmental pollutant and potently-harmful, in some cases deadly, toxic element that he focused on in other areas of his work.
Since that time, he has been made aware of numerous other potently-harmful, in some cases deadly, elements, chemicals, substances, and viruses of all sorts contained in vaccines. He has also been made aware of their synergistic toxicity.
Additionally, he shows us by what he says that he is clearly aware of the corruption that exists at all levels from vaccine manufacture to vaccine mandate...that not one level of the process is without corruption, deception, and fraud.
So, for him to continually chant the same tired mantra in every speech and during every interview at this point seems absurd, and should make one question why he won't now expand his mantra to something like this:
"I used to be fiercely pro-vaccine. As a matter of fact, I vaccinated all 6 of my children according to the CDC's recommended schedule, and I believed that vaccines had saved millions of lives. Knowing what I now know about the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines...about the fraud, deceit, and corruption that underlies them and keeps them propped up, and that are withheld from the unknowing and trusting public...and that there is actually no proof that vaccines have saved even one life because the studies that would prove such a claim have never been done...I can no longer say that I am fiercely pro-vaccine...I can no longer say that if I had a child born today I would vaccinate him or her according to the CDC-recommended schedule...and I can no longer state with any confidence that vaccines have saved millions of lives. I now know too much to make such statements any more.”
An updated mantra would not have kept him from testifying in the states where he testified this past year, nor would it have kept him from speaking at the rallies where he spoke this past year. I think it would make what he says that much more powerful. He, like all of us, has had a learning curve, and he has learned a lot since he first began to speak about the mercury in vaccines. It only makes sense that he would update his message as he learns more and more. To not do so raises many questions in my mind.
If we are to protect our children, and ourselves, from government-mandated harm, and possible death, via vaccines, we must fully restore our individual and parental rights to decline vaccinations, rights which have wrongfully been taken from us. We have successfully made the case that vaccines contain dangerous, poisonous, and health-destroying ingredients, that vaccine failure is rampant, that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and increasingly common, and that vaccine-related fraud and corruption are obscene. Thus, to focus our efforts now on anything other than fully restoring our individual and parental rights, which includes banning vaccine mandates and repealing the egregious 1986 Act, is futile.
If Mr. Kennedy, and anyone else, thinks it is strategically best to focus on just mercury-laden thimerosal, consider the following. If one extrapolates forward, and if all mercury was removed from all vaccines, including during the manufacturing process, then what? We are still in an untenable situation. We are still living in a country where mandates are increasing, exemptions are being tightened and in many places being eliminated altogether, and vaccines will still be unsafe, in addition to still being ineffective. Yet, Americans would still be forced to accept scores of them, beginning in infancy, possibly in utero, to participate in society. So I do not understand how it is a wise or viable strategy to continue to focus solely on the one vaccine ingredient, thimerosal. That strategy will not keep us safe from vaccine mandates, and it will not restore our individual and parental rights to say no to vaccines as we see fit without government interference.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 31, 2015 at 01:42 PM
To add to Sylvia's latest comment, I will share a thought of mine that I have posted in similar form before in an AoA comments section:
As the mother of vaccine-injured children, I become infuriated when I hear people spout off that they are "fiercely pro-vaccine". That is analagous to telling the mother of a child who was injured or killed by a drunk driver that you are "fiercely pro-drunk driving". Millions of us parents worldwide are giving firsthand testimony that our children were permanently harmed, and in many cases killed, by vaccines, and then someone has the audacity to continue to state over and over again that they are "fiercely pro-vaccine" right in front of us, without at least pairing it with "but I am fiercely anti-mandate". To state this pro-vaccine mantra in today's world filled with the vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed is horridly insensitive and I find it intolerable.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 30, 2015 at 12:12 PM
Thank you for your very thoughtful response :)
I feel incredibly strongly about the urgent nature of what is at stake, and our side's messaging is critically important to achieving our goal, which in my view, is the complete restoration of individual and parental rights to make any and all medical decisions for oneself and one's children without one iota of government interference. If we don't achieve that goal, our efforts will be nothing more than academic and completely futile.
It is a God-given right, and the most basic fundamental human right, to decide that which we allow or don't allow into our bodies and those of our children. To quote Mary Holland, "Without that right, what meaningful right do we have?" It has been taken from us in this country, in violation of The Nuremberg Code and in violation of other international codes of ethics to which the U.S. has agreed.
State by state, and now even at the federal level, the vaccine profiteers want to completely eliminate our right to say no to scores and scores of vaccines. California has already fallen, and I'm quite sure that other states will fall in the coming year if things don't change. Without the right messaging, we are in big trouble. You know, I know, most AoA readers know, and Mr. Kennedy knows that it most certainly is not just the mercury in vaccines and a few bad apples at the CDC that are the problem. It's SO MUCH MORE and ALL roads lead back to fully restoring individual and parental rights with regard to any and all medical decisions. Period. If that's not our messaging, how will we ever achieve what we need to remain a free society free of medical tyranny?
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 05:35 PM
If only we had time to be giving people breaks...we don't.
The concern that I, and many others, have with Mr. Kennedy is his sole focus on thimerosal. His messaging seems to imply that if the mercury-laden thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the vaccines would then be safe. That is not true, and therefore, such messaging is dangerous.
Below is a favorite quote from a colleague that I have shared before. It sums up the danger of stating only partial truths and of not exposing all of the safety and efficacy problems with vaccines, not to mention the lack of need for them, and the danger of not focusing on the many risk-free ways to protect, maintain, and enhance one's health without the use of risk-laden vaccines:
"As long as vaccines are perceived to be harmless, then mandates will be considered to be harmless. Just an inconvenience. They will just be forcing people to do something good for them they don't like, like eating your vegetables.”
This is the path I fear Mr. Kennedy is heading towards...i.e. if the thimerosal is removed from vaccines (as though it's the only problem with vaccines)...then vaccines will be fine, and mandates are okay and a good idea. (He certainly does not state any opposition to vaccine mandates, or support for the parental right to refuse one, some, or all vaccines for their child, in this New York Times editorial of his.
Our most basic and fundamental human right to refuse vaccines is under fierce attack and being eliminated at a breakneck pace. We do not have time to be giving people breaks at this point in time.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 11:47 AM
I caution you not to be so sure that Mr. Kennedy is against vaccine mandates. There are many things that Mr. Kennedy has never actually stated publicly, but for which people make assumptions, as with your assumption that he is against vaccine mandates. We need to be careful not to give credit where credit is not yet due, especially on such a critically-important point.
And vaccine mandates ARE the crux of the matter. In a free society, there can NEVER be vaccine mandates, medical mandates, or forced medicine of any sort. In a free society, the safety profile of a medical treatment or procedure is irrelevant. What is relevant is the freedom to decide and choose what one does or doesn't allow into one's body, or that of one's child. Period. Without that right, what meaningful right do we have?
In my 2nd rally speech here in CA in opposition to SB277 (), I talked about how The Nuremberg Code nullifies and forbids vaccine mandates. The Nuremberg Code should have superseded and overturned the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision. 1947 should have marked the year that immoral and unethical vaccine mandates were forever banned. But it didn't. And until we ban vaccine mandates, and all forced medicine, we will forever be fighting these same battles against medical tyranny which profoundly threaten each and every one of us.
It is my sincere hope that Mr. Kennedy will very soon boldly and publicly announce that he is FIERCELY OPPOSED to vaccine mandates, and that he will heroically call for a permanent ban on them. It is also my sincere hope that he will publicly call for the immediate repeal of the 1986 NCVIA. If not, then he and I are not fighting for the same things, not at all.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM
I was never "pro-vaccine". Listen to the beginning of my radio interview with Jeanie Keltner for a recap if interested.
I don't agree that "we were all" pro-vaccine. What we were was improperly informed, and therefore unknowingly ignorant, thanks to a many-decades-long propaganda campaign filled with LIES that were then taught as truths in our schools, by our doctors, and in all forms of media.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 09:46 AM
To Mr. Kennedy:
Do you support vaccine mandates?
Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?
Do you support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?
Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 28, 2015 at 12:21 PM