Bid on a Framed, Signed Lance Armstrong Team Discover Jersey
Oops. Flu Pandemic May Be The Mildest since Modern Medicine Began Tracking.

Kickin’ the Tires of the Green Vaccine Initiative

Ferrari-dealership-11-03-09 By Kent Heckenlively, Esq.

From the years I worked in sales there was one piece of information which has always stuck with me.  It’s said that even when a person goes to a car dealership knowing he wants to get a specific car, the salesman still has to ask for the sale at least five times before the customer says yes.

I understand very few of you had ever considered a ballot proposition as a way to make progress in combating autism.  You didn't intend to walk onto that particular car lot.  I may need to “ask” for your support many times before you say yes.

But the process goes even deeper.  The person who goes onto that car lot knowing the specific car he wants isn’t trying to make the salesman’s job more difficult.  We may know what we like, but we also want to make sure the decision we make is the right one.  In the sales world the four times the interested customer says “no” are known as “objections”.  The salesman’s job is to answer those objections as completely as he can.  If he does a good job the sale is made.  If not, the interested customer walks away.

Since I’ve rolled out the Green Vaccines initiative it seems there have been three main objections raised and I want to take each one of them in turn:

A.  We should just stick to getting a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated Study funded – I will confess that the first order of business is getting a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study done with world-class researchers and a large enough sample size to make people sit up and take notice.  However, I know that some people are very close to getting something along those lines started.  That’s the first punch.  How long will it take them to get results?  Personally, I think such a thing could be done relatively quickly.  Then what follows?  I think the Green Vaccines Initiative is something which supports that line of inquiry.  It's a good second punch.  If a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study gets funded we should have the results by election time.  If not it creates more of an impetus to get such a study completed.
B.  Parts of the Green Vaccine Initiative are too controversial – I understand some parts of the initiative may be too controversial.  However, before we do polling on these issues none of us has a true answer to that question.  We’re all just giving our opinion without having the facts.  The first stage of this effort is doing market research to take the political pulse of voters on these issues.  The initiative which we present to the voters will be the result of careful research and planning.

C.  The Green Vaccines Initiative doesn’t go far enough – I read with great interest an open letter to me from the Natural Solutions Foundation which made the assertion that there is no such thing as a “safe vaccine.”  I find myself in sympathy with such a view and am certainly acting as if there is currently no such thing as a safe vaccine by not getting any myself or having them given to my children.  I might eventually take such a position.  However, it seems to me that to move things forward we need to change public perception from the belief that vaccines are universally safe, to one that they have troublesome components which render them potentially unsafe to a certain subset of the population, as a prelude to a full and objective look at the safety of the entire vaccination program. 

I made the analogy in my letter of response to the Natural Solutions Foundation, of a man who was in San Francisco but needs a ride to San Diego.  I stumble upon him and inform him I’m going to Los Angeles and would be happy to give him a ride that far.  On the journey down I might convince him Los Angeles is a better destination.  He might do the same in regards to convincing me of the benefits of San Diego.  We might end up not convincing either one, but at least we each had an agreeable companion for the trip.  I would have benefited from his company and he would be much closer to his destination.

I’ll end  like a good salesman reminding you of what we’re talking about, then leaving the decision up to you.  Although this effort takes place in a single state I believe it will provoke a national discussion about vaccine ingredients, vulnerable sub-populations, the undeniable rise in neurological disorders, and the criminal lack of interest in doing the appropriate safety testing regarding vaccines.  This benefits everybody.  Here are the main parts of the Green Vaccine Initiative that we are looking to test with potential voters.

1.  Research/Testing – Oregon requests the federal government to return the records of the Vaccine Safety Data-Link from private industry and make them available to independent researchers, conduct a study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, study the health effects of aluminum adjuvants, and other substances used in vaccines like hydrolyzed gelatin and sorbitol.

2.  Disclosure/Informed Consent – Comparison of Oregon schedules with that of the CDC and other first world countries and full disclosure of vaccine ingredients, as well as the level of safety testing on them.

3.  Banning – Thimerosal ban across the board, as well as the flu shot for pregnant women, a ban on multiple vaccinations at a single visit, a six month ban on vaccines for premature births, and three months for any infant.

4.  Changes to Existing Law – Adding a philosophical exemption for Oregon, reducing required vaccines, restriction of the Vaccine Act of 1986 to unavoidably unsafe components of vaccines, and additional rights of military personnel to choose alternative vaccination schedules.

5.  Consumer/Parental Choice – Giving parents the freedom to choose aluminum and formaldehyde free vaccines, a different vaccination schedule, a titer check before vaccination, as well as one for mitochondrial disorders which might be exacerbated by a vaccine, and the right to have multiple vaccines such as MMR split up into individual doses.

You can donate by clicking HERE. When you get to the donation page for Generation Rescue, click that you want to make the donation in honor of somebody, then during Step 2 you can make a personal note at the final field to enter information, please place the word "Ballot" in the personal note section so your donation can be directed to this effort.

Kent Heckenlively is Legal Editor of Age of Autism



I believe it is very important to do a vaccinated/unvaccinated study.
We have a situation where many people saw their child regress after vaccines, but are told it "did not happen".

Some children with autism have different causes; for example Fragile X syndrome, or congenital rubella or exposure to thalidomide or sodium valporate in the womb.
Because there is not a one on one correlation ( ie every child who gets a vaccine gets autism) and because there are also other causes of autism, we need a study that gets rid of as much "statistical white noise" as possible.

Studying vaccinated and completely unvaccinated high risk groups ( premature babies, boys, siblings with autism in the family, is likely to be the design most likely to give usable information.

I believe that many regular physicians have been lulled into thinking that vaccines are basically safe. At the point where there is a study showing that vaccination increases the risk of autism by whatever % then people will truly start to study who is at highest risk of complications, or even what it is about our current schedule that appears to make it much more dangerous than the schedule used 20 years ago.
I suspect that some children are susceptible enough to injury that they should never be vaccinated. And that others probably could be safely vaccinated against high risk diseases if it was done differently.
Even Objectors on this thread agreed that if there were several studies showing that vaccinated kids had more autism than unvaccinated kids, he would rethink his/her position.

Alexander Cornswalled

The whole "Green our vaccines" movement is an abomination. You can't "Green" something that's a base level violation of your body, banned by both God and the very biology of which we are made.

You can't "green" something whose only goal is to contaminate you and trigger an immune response that may very well cause your body to literally attack your nervous system!


Kent, I am sorry, but I am still stuck on your points A & B. When you first posted about this, several people provided feedback of the "constructive criticism" variety that I thought was well thought out and articulated. Your responses give the impression of "Good point, but I'm going to ignore it".

I'm particularly stuck on your issue B above. You said,

"... before we do polling on these issues none of us has a true answer to that question. We’re all just giving our opinion without having the facts."

I would respectfully disagree that this is an issue of "facts"; on the contrary, I believe it is entirely an issue of perceptions. I doubt there is a single item on your list that **every** voter will agree has merit. The readers at AofA are surely among the most well-informed and supportive people you are likely to find, and even among this group some of your proposals are too far "out there". You say that it is possible (maybe even likely?) that these controversial proposals will eventually be dropped, but that isn't good enough for me. I don't want my money going to support proposals that I strongly disagree with, and unfortunately some of your ideas fall into that category, including framing it as a "Green" issue.

This is all a bit theoretical, since any financial support I could give would be so small it would be symbolic at best. I apologize if this is sounding overly negative and critical. Maybe I'm a little offended at the tone of your post -- it comes across to me as if you are saying that the people who haven't donated don't sufficiently understand your project. Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I'm tired of TPTB telling me I don't understand. I understand perfectly well -- I just don't agree.


I am still on the fence on this. I share concerns about how a study would actually be conducted -- I remember last year AS cancelled a study that was going to look at chelation. The study was designed to evaluate mercury blood lead levels to determine efficacy. There was an outcry over the cancellation but I was relieved, because the way the study was designed it was destined to show chelation provided no benefit. I'm glad AoA still has the link to Dr. Healy's interview on CBS - - we need to study the kids who got sick. We need to look at our own kids and focus on research to find the cause. After all, a study showing there is a higher incidence of autism and neurological issues in vaccinated populations does not prove vaccines cause autism (and the same arguments we use could be reversed on such an epidemiological study). So, I tend to think we should support more direct research, like the recent Hep B study and mercury/primate study--

Tony Bateson

Your commentator is absolutely right there will never be support for a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study from the medical/government establishment because the game would be up very quickly and conclusively.

Here's a proposition, the best place to do it is in the UK where not only are medical records very good and reliable but there is also a large number (possibly in excess of 3 millions)of unvaccinated individuals born since 1966. There is also a very large longitudinal study that has collected extensive medical data on 14,000 children born since 1991.

I have proposed such a project in the UK in Autism File in recent months. I believe that the UK public would substantially donate to such a cause and I would organise it for free. I have raised around £40 millions for UK causes over the last twenty years.

Tony Bateson
Oxford, UK

Kathy Blanco

An observation...if green vaccines means to make them safer and slower, then an unvaccinated population would not reflect the green vaccine message, er...that having a safer vaccine or a slower schedule would not result in autism? Am I confused or am I on to something here? Note, the study says, UNVACCINATED, total and complete, not sorta kinda, nit picket, but total and complete...? If we really want a good study, should it also not also include a safer schedule vaccine as proposed, or a green vaccine too? (I don't believe you can make them safe or green, but that's another moot point)....


Oedipaa, actually no; scientists are very capable of doing observational studies that do not involve tracking babies from birth.

There are large numbers of non vaccinated children currently available to study.No issues there.

Some are even the siblings of vaccinated (and autistic) children.

The current state of vaccine safety studies do not use any type of control group at all.

Are you not even a little bit curious about what would be the result of such a study?

By the way, I find your use of words like "good scientists" and "evil vaccines" surprisingly religious;we are talking about a medicine.Medicines can do good things and also have side effects.

Rather like nice healthy, high protien peanut butter, which can cause severe anaphylactic shock in some people;not all medicines or even foods are safe for everybody.
It is only right to actually do the studies needed to identify what side effects vaccines can cause ,and who would be most susceptible to them.

And to Objectors, very much agree that good science should be replicable.

Oedipaa Maas

A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study will never be supported by reputable scientists. In order to eliminate factors like environment, diet and other lifestyle differences you would have to track the children from birth. You won't find any "world-class" researcher willing to conduct an experiment that requires allowing hundreds or thousands of children to go unvaccinated so that they can be studied. You might think vaccines are evil but most good scientists don't.


Beware the Natural Solutions Foundation. Most other natural health organisations have distanced themselves from NSF because NSF has been spreading "disinformation" regarding the subject of health freedom.

I don't have time to find good informative links about NSF right now, but you might begin with this one I just quickly retrieved:

To me they look too much like a ploy by the "medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex": they take all the same positions of good people like yourself, ANH, etc. but then take them to the ultimate extreme (e.g. they openly refer to themselves and others that are fighting current vaccination policy as "anti-vaccine", something which I understand AoA does not support). In so doing they give a bad name to health-freedom-fighters everywhere, making them look like the crazy extremists the CDC/Big Pharma et. al. want them to appear to be. At the same time they collect donations from the same pool of people, taking away money that would go to more legitimate health freedoms orgs.

In short, anything you receive from NSF should be regarded with extreme suspicion and carefully inspected for ulterior motives.

Here's one more link:

Theodore Van Oosbree

A vaccinated/unvaccinated study by a disinterested party would be a crude but effective instrument to get to the heart of the problem. The resistance of the powers-that-be to such a study (and their disingenuous objections) suggest that they know the game would be up if such a study were ever permitted.


Dawn -
Hasn't that issue been addressed and included by point #4 that Kent has listed above? And at this phase of just trying to get to the point where people can be polled to get it on the ballot, it's possible that the polling results could favor your opinion and that would change the end wording of the ballot. There's more than one way to achieve a goal. I don't see what you lose by supporting it at this phase, except a few bucks.

Dawn Winkler

I also have to agree that there is no safe vaccine and can never be a safe vaccine, whether you take the mercury or any other ingredient out. So to me, a Green Vaccine campaign is not something I could ever support. Vaccination choice and education is in my opinion the better way to go. We desperately need a study that compares overall health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. It is my belief that right now, ALL focus should be on this one goal. Yes, there are people working on this and I think we should ALL be supporting it in whatever way we can rather than diluting our collective effort by attempting something that is not possible, "greening" vaccines. Actually, I think that "greening" vaccines could be to our detriment because it could lead new parents in the future to believe that somehow the problems have been fixed when in fact they have not. Just because you take mercury out of a vaccine does not mean in any way shape or form that it is safe. The powers that be could also use this to ultimately TAKE CHOICE AWAY. They will point to whatever has been done and say "see, we listened and we made them safe. You have no excuse to want to opt out". It's a slippery slope and I can see where it's going. I think that ultimately, we should focus our efforts on goals that we know will absolutely support maintaining and expanding vaccination freedom of choice and not risk supporting anything that might undermine it.


If it can be replicated, I would be willing to change my mind. But bear in mind if such a study showed positive correlation, it would be contrary to many large studies and thus it would absolutely need replication for me to take it seriously.


To the Objectors: When one starts looking into toxicology and neurological research that's already been done and not just "vaccine studies," done by the manufacturer or organizations accepting funding from manufacturers, it may be easier to understand the high level of confidence that parents of children with vaccine-induced chronic illnesses have when it comes to setting up a few research projects to actually answer the pertinant questions regarding vaccines. At the very least, a negative outcome would eliminate one path of focus and allow resources to be confidently reallocated.
To: CT Teacher
What I see a huge benefit of taking these interim steps, assuming vaccines could never be safe, is that the wording allows many many groups of differing opinions to work together, and there is power in numbers. It allows for vaccine exemption populations, it allows people to vaccinate (more safely) if so desired, and it would probably even allow the pharmas and most of their suppliers to continue to reap huge profits. Most importantly, for those ignorant of the risk of vaccinating, it takes steps to protect their innocent children, and so it is a step worth taking now, even if it just leads in the general direction of your hopes for vaccine elimination.
Kent: Keep up the good work. I'll be making another donation today. Is there going to be a donation "ticker" so we can see our progress?


I think this ballot is a great idea and will really help .Just bringing the topic up for discussion on such a large scale is going to make people more aware of the issues and the lack of safety studies done.
To Objectors;
It has often surprised me that those who state so firmly that they believe the results will show no connection,have fought so very hard to make sure the vaccinated/unvaccinated study is never done.Very unscientific, at the very least.

When I first started worrying about a possible vaccine/autism connection, the first thing I did was look for proof vaccines were safe.
It seemed that those most likely to develop autism were those specifically excluded from studies. No premature baby studies, no studies on children with family history of autoimmune disorders,even though the rates of autism for such children can be as high as 1 in 12.
Identifying the real cause(s) of autism could lead to real life treatments and maybe help prevent many other children form developing autism. The truth matters.

So may I ask the question in reverse also; what will you do if such a study shows a connection??


If this research is done fairly as science should be and not done by some EPA official - and from what I have witnessed and many other parents have witnessed --- IT WON'T !!!!!


what would you do if the results of a trial were negative?

Kent Heckenlively

The addition of a philosophical exemption gives people the right to choose not to vaccinate their children. I hope that understanding this point will allow you and the Natural Solutions Foundation to support this effort.

All the best,
Kent Heckenlively

CT teacher

Kent-I agree completely with the Natural Solutions Foundation. So, it is my opinion that advocating for Vaccination Choice is a better way to go than advocating for Green Vaccines. It's impossible to green them and it seems to me, somewhat disingenuous to say that it can be done. I get your position that its difficult to get people to go from A to Z without a stop at M, but choice allows a lot of wiggle room.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)