Is it Ethical to Kill Children to Save Children? Friday Night NYC Event Explains
NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Should the government promote a medical intervention that undeniably causes death and serious injury to a minority in order to save the lives of the majority?
Vaccines are credited with saving the lives of millions of people from many diseases, but they have also taken lives. In Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, authors Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland explain that the current vaccine program stakes the life of one child over another. No parents should be compelled to take actions that could cause their child to live a life of suffering, or even die.
Bill Gates recently stated on CNN that people who question the safety of vaccines are liars who are killing children: "So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids... the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts -- you know, they, they kill children." In reality, it is the people who fail to question the safety of the current vaccine program who may be allowing innocent infants and children to suffer serious injuries, and even death. Could some of these injuries and deaths have been avoided?
Vaccine Epidemic is pro-human rights, pro-science, and pro-justice for those injured by vaccination. The book is not anti-vaccine; it upholds the right to choose and affirms the international human rights standard of free and informed consent to all medical interventions. Habakus and Holland urgently call for more science to help identify those people who are most susceptible to vaccine injury. People die from vaccines just as people die from infectious disease. Life is sacred, and one child's death is not more tragic than another's. Who gets to make these life-and-death decisions?
Join the authors as they discuss these issues at their book launch event at the New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Square South, New York City, NY on February 18 at 6:30 pm. It is free and open to the public. For more information and to register, go to www.vaccineepidemic.com.
Vaccine Epidemic is available on Amazon.com and in bookstores everywhere.
You ask why there aren't any statistics to show that vaccines are killing children. Maybe because most deaths caused by vaccines are classified as something else - SIDS, for example, or as in the following case, liver failure. Now if this little girl had died from a complication of measles, her death would have been reported and counted as a measles death, and used as propaganda to promote measles vaccination.
If no one is collecting data of children who've died - or developed autism - after adverse reactions to vaccines, we're not going to see any statistics, are we?
Posted by: ATSC | February 20, 2011 at 12:00 AM
What a wonderful book signing event it was. Dr. Wakefield was there, and so were many other panel speakers.
Now for the bad news: Dr. Tenpenny confirmed that just over 330 new vaccines are in the pipeline. (332 or 333- I can't remember the exact number.) Thirty of them merely need final approval to be added to the children's vaccination schedule.
Now for more bad news: Many blockbuster drugs for Pharma are about to come off patent protection (i.e. Lipitor). I would think the Pharma lobbyists are going to push our elected representatives for many more vaccine mandates to fill their profit vacuum. Good luck to us. We are going to need it.
The time is now to feel out all of our elected representatives from the Assembly to our Senate and Congress members to find out just where they stand on the issue of vaccination mandates for children, religious and philosophical/conscientious exemption to vaccination, and informed consent for all pharmaceutical products whether they are vaccines, or anything else.
Posted by: Not an MD | February 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Someone asked if vaccines are really killing people. Well, if you go to the Vaccines injury site (if it's still online) http://vaers.hhs.gov/index you can see all the SIDS-lookalike cases that were settled where babies died close to their exact ages, like 4 months, 6 months--ages that match a shot sequence. These babies were not actually "SIDS" . They were harmed by the vaccine, or they would not have been compensated. they were the tip of the ice berg where the doctor dared to report the reaction. They paid those grieving parents off, and quickly. People might pay attention to babies who die rather than 'just' get autism.
Posted by: CarolynC Kylesmom | February 18, 2011 at 03:19 PM
This is the exact thing that we are trying to bring to light on truthaboutgardasil.org. All of our daughters had every vaccine available. It was our duty as a mothers to "protect" our children. And now, since their severe illnesses, after the Gardasil/HPV vaccine, every time we speak out to warn others, we get called an "anti-vaccine" nut cases. Anti vaccine individuals do NOT vaccinate their children. We did not sign up for clinical trials, yet that's exactly what we feel our children have been a part of. Guinea Pigs. Massive profits.
Is it unethical? You bet it is!! And it's time that this stops!! Our bodies were created to build immunities, not to withstand genetic altering and poisoning.
I will be getting this book. If there is anything that we can help you with at all, please feel free to contact us.
Posted by: Laurie | February 18, 2011 at 04:00 AM
I still wonder if childhood diseases prevent adults from much worse diseases... I think they are a rite of passage for a healthy immune system. The world has gone mad trying to not get sick,,, yet our schools are filled with sick children... HOnestley.... where are all the healthy children? As I teacher I'm frightened to see a trend of children suffering from so many ailments It didn't use to be like this.
Posted by: fanofthefew | February 17, 2011 at 11:55 PM
"Is it Ethical to Kill Children to Save Children?"
NO is the obvious and simple answer. Vaccination policy is unethical and immoral because it causes human injuries including permanent disabilities and death and because it tolerates and is accepting of those casualties and because those casualties grow everyday as more vaccines are added to the schedule.
To be ethical would require a zero tolerance policy for human casualties.
Public health initiatives sponsored by tax payer dollars should focus on areas that serve the Greatest Good and not the ill-conceived "greater good" where some are sacrificed, damaged or killed by program and product design deficiencies.
The Greatest Good at this time in history is cleaning the myriad toxic industrial chemicals from the air, water, food, and consumer products and medicines.
Posted by: Magnanimous Mom | February 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM
If vaccines are killing children as you say, why aren't there any statistics to support this?
Is it your position that parents should also not allow their children to do other things that carry a risk of death such as riding in cars or participating in sports?
Posted by: Interested parent | February 17, 2011 at 08:34 PM
I was not vaccinated and neither were my siblings. We did get measles and mumps and chicken pox. We survived without complications. Now we have immunity and we are not suffering from autoimmune diseases, bowl disorders and autism. We do not have ADHD and learning disabilities and other neurological problems.
Now people are told that they must risk these serious ramifications from vaccines in order to avoid childhood diseases. Why? What kind of a lie is this? Cui bono? from vaccinations.
Posted by: Ann | February 17, 2011 at 06:55 PM
The next time someone says that autism is caused by genes, tell them if this many people have genes that cause them to adversely react to the vaccines, then obviously the vaccines need to be changed. It is immoral and unethical to mandate a product that 1% of the population has lifetime adverse effects from.
Posted by: Heidi N | February 17, 2011 at 06:48 PM
That's really the unspoken question, isn't it?
And is it ethical to damage some children to improve others' health?
The unspoken answers of the silently complicit speak volumes.
Posted by: nhokkanen | February 17, 2011 at 04:12 PM
Besides, what's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | February 17, 2011 at 03:58 PM
As many of you know I have long argued against the ethics and rationality of this. Wrote about it here: On cheating 'the other guy' http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/2008/Feb_18_08/Scandal86.htm as well as other columns.
Also talked about it in my speech near the end: "I also consider any notion of "public health" to be suspect, which sacrifices the individual to some alleged higher goal. Many of us find it way scarier that the state would sacrifice children to someone's idea of the common good, than to take our chances with Mother Nature. Who decides? What's the right number? Who's counting? Even in wartime, the draft of adults is only used very judiciously and sparingly. We also go to considerable effort to avoid enemy civilian casualties. Yet we seem to think nothing of sacrificing our own innocent children...We parents deserve the right to choose what we feel is best for the children we love, and for whom we are responsible. No one else will be expected to care for our children if the vaccines or diseases maim them. No one else’s heart will be broken like ours if they are killed or otherwise harmed." http://www.vaccinationnews.com/bartlett-democratic-club-speech-anchorage-alaska-february-7-2002
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | February 17, 2011 at 03:29 PM
I got my book today from amazon.
I cannot wait to read it.
I wish i would be near NY to be there and support the authors.
All the good vibes are being sent to the authors' way!
Posted by: Erika | February 17, 2011 at 03:04 PM
Sometimes when I'm reading, my brain sees words that aren't there.
When I read the title, "Is it Ethical to Kill Children to Save Children? Friday Night NYC Event Explains"
I read, "Fright Night" instead of "Friday Night."
I think that's because the question is very disturbing, and almost ghoulish. Yet, it's the reality of the vaccine program.
Posted by: Kristina | February 17, 2011 at 01:45 PM
A little off topic, but Dr. Oz is doing a show on "What Causes Autism" today. Not sure if he'll touch on the elephant in the room, but at least he's showing some urgency...
Posted by: Marykay | February 17, 2011 at 01:21 PM
Do not read the book if you do not have a strong set of teeth (they will need to be strong to withstand the grinding!).
Posted by: Theodore Van Oosbree | February 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM
"Vaccines are credited with saving the lives of millions of people from many diseases..."
Well, did they really? Is that what you believe? Or is that what they want you to believe?
The myth of "vaccine-preventable diseases" has never been proven. We should demand to see the proof. Have antibody titers even been proven to provide immunity?
"Synoptic Overview: Issues in Immunization Theory and Practice" by Raymond Obomsawin, November 2009.
"Takada A. and Kawaoka Y.; Antibody-dependent enhancement of viral infection: molecular mechanisms and in vivo implications; Reviews in Medical Virology; No. 13; 2003; pp. 387-398."
Posted by: patrons99 | February 17, 2011 at 11:21 AM
"The book is not anti-vaccine"
-"NONSENSE," whines the pharmaceutical industry.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | February 17, 2011 at 10:41 AM
The question in the title is very good one, and the answer is no. I always compare it to the following:
In the early days the AIDS epidemic, why didn't we kill everybody infected? With just a few thousand 'gentle human executions', we would have saved millions of future deaths in the world.
When a new virus emerges that might potentially evolve in a pandemic crisis, why don't we just 'gently' kill all the people who screen positive for the virus, right at the beginning? This would prevent millions of potential deaths later on and so much suffering.
And anybody who objects to such a policy is a threat to global health, a terrorist, a tortioner. Actually, maybe we should kill those too, just to make sure that they don't hide sick people who might contaminate others.
Oh wait, maybe we should shut down the internet too, just to prevent them from uniting...
Posted by: Karin | February 17, 2011 at 09:44 AM
I love the title. The title of this wonderful new book suggests a new slogan!
"END VACCINE EPIDEMICS NOW"
MEDICAL FREEDOM NOW
END MEDICAL FASCISM NOW
END VACCINE MANDATES NOW
END VACCINE EPIDEMICS NOW
EDUCATE BEFORE YOU VACCINATE
Posted by: patrons99 | February 17, 2011 at 09:15 AM
There's a wild card out there, which the vaccine zealots fail to ever address: it's that of the consequences to global health of the vaccine-virus, vaccine-disease, and vaccine epidemics, which are becoming ever more common.
Vaccine-induced transmissible, infectious diseases, may not only be more difficult to treat, but may one day not be containable or treatable. What then? Certainly, then, it would be too late to discuss them critically.
By mandating vaccines, aren't you making it much more difficult to ever conduct a fully-vaxed versus completely unvaxed comparison? By mandating vaccines, are we creating a new "wild-type" that is multi-drug-resistant and multi-jab-resistant? By mandating vaccines, would "breakouts" of once "conquered" become the new "normal"? Aren't we already seeing that take place?
"As reports of our children becoming autistic, paralysed, and having unidentified diseases have abnormally increased, vaccinations have become increasingly unacceptable as a norm. This advertised belief in vaccination needs to be addressed critically."
Posted by: patrons99 | February 17, 2011 at 08:13 AM
Finished this book yesteray. Absolutley amazing!
Posted by: kathleen | February 17, 2011 at 08:04 AM
This is a great book and I highly recommend it to all.
Authors Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland state .. "the current vaccine program stakes the life of one child over another. No parents should be compelled to take actions that could cause their child to live a life of suffering, or even die."
Amen to that.
Indeed, no parent should ever be COMPELLED to even RISK taking actions that could cause their child to live a life of suffering or dying.
The authors further state: "In reality, it is the people who fail to question the safety of the current vaccine program who may be allowing innocent infants and children to suffer serious injuries, and even death. Could some of these injuries and deaths have been avoided?"
I find it ironic that Bernie Madoff recently stated one of the major reasons he was so successful .. over decades .. in defrauding his investors .. was because major banks who were profiting from his crimes "failed to question his suspicious actions".
Bernie believes the banks "simply did not want to know the truth".
Bill Gates and prominent public health officials should immediately stop attacking those who are seeking research to make vaccines "safer" .. and .. begin vigorously pursuing that research to prove vaccines are as "safe" as they insist they are.
If for no other reason than avoiding future allegations they refused to do the research for no other reason than simply "not wanting to know the truth".
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | February 17, 2011 at 07:40 AM
If only I could grow some wings...............
Congratulations once again and wishing all a spectacular evening. Maurine
Posted by: Maurine meleck | February 17, 2011 at 07:15 AM
is it ethical to kill kids to save kids? no.."for the good of the herd" is just a good sales pitch. I don't think the agenda is to save kids at all .. corporate greed is involved but there's more to it than that.
Posted by: Sarah | February 17, 2011 at 07:10 AM