From page 8 of the book “Horrors of Vaccination Exposed and Illustrated: Petition To The President To Abolish Compulsory Vaccination In Army and Navy (1920)” by Charles Michael Higgins.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20891709/Horrors-of-Vaccination-Exposed-1920-by-Chaz-M-Higgins

“Compulsory Vaccination is an instance of a law which inflicts actual disease and possible death on the human body and propagates and disseminates deadly infections widely upon animals and mankind. This is surely a glaring instance of a law which is not based on Wisdom or Sanity and is a Menace to the Health and Security of Humanity and the State.”

“This amazing act is the homicidal insanity of a whole profession. This is blood assassination.” – Dr. James J. Garth Wilkinson, 1876.

“It is unwise for the physician to force the operation upon those who are unwilling, or to give assurances of absolute harmlessness.” – Dr. Osler’s “Modern Medicine,” 1913, Vol. 1, page 848.

“Vaccination is not always a harmless procedure; it must be looked upon as the production of an acute infectious disease.” – Dr. Milton J. Rosenau, 1914.

“Against the body of a healthy man Parliament has no right of assault whatever, under pretence of the public health.” – Professor F. W. Newman, of Oxford.

“Vaccination is a delusion, its penal enforcement a crime.” – Professor Alfred Russel Wallace, in “The Wonderful Century,” 1899.

FWIW, Bob, I thought it was an excellent example.

Mandated inoculations are crimes against humanity.

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, It is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." -- Robert Houghwout Jackson, Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg

Mandated inoculations with neurotoxic metals, endocrine disruptors, infertility agents, abortifacients, phase transfer catalysts, ionophores, and non-human DNA, are crimes against humanity.

Humanity has a God-given right to opt-out of this barbaric practice.

Not only should we strongly resist pharma’s effort to overturn state vaccine exemptions, we should strongly press our lawmakers, judges, and justices, for complete banning of all state and federal mandated inoculations. Of course, if we prevail on the latter (declaring all vaccine mandates unconstitutional), the former (preserving state vaccine exemptions) is superfluous.

Those of us who don't vaccinate don't want to force our views on anyone - we just want to be left alone without being accused of spreading disease or FORCED to receive vaccinations. Our position is not in any way "extreme". In fact, I would call it a moderate, well-reasoned, non-negotiable position - a position that respects everyone's right to medical freedom.

MAKE AUTISM STOP
VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
END VACCINE MANDATES NOW
END MEDICAL FASCISM NOW
MEDICAL FREEDOM NOW

US and Japan difference:
In Japan 5 children recently died after being injected with Hib and pneumo vaccines, and this country immediately suspended these vaccines. In the US, in VAERS there are 1134 records of death after pneumo vaccines and 1384 deaths after Hib vaccines (meaning the real numbers are at least 10 times greater), and nothing happens. All vaccines caused a great number of deaths and injuries in the US, and the US government keeps pushing them on US infants, knowing very well, that vaccines are weapons of mass destruction.

Bravo, Barbara! You are a wonderful spokesperson for our cause. I pray for the day when all this madness ends, and the truth about all the harm vaccines have caused is out in the open. Unfortunately our numbers are growing, but fortunately we are not being quieted....nothing so strong as a parent's voice once a child has been injured. God bless us all.

My children's carseats, required by law, necessary to save their lives in an auto accident. Or, at the very least prevent more substantial injuries. NOT INDEMNIFIED. If Britax manufactures a carseat with a design defect that can be shown to have caused my child's injuries to be significantly worse than otherwise...I CAN SUE. If it's found, that to save money, they used a cheaper plastic for my carseat than one tested for safety and my kid is injured, I CAN SUE!!.

I don't see Britax or Graco or any of the others trying to get indemnity. Or threatening bankruptcy. Or threatening to stop manufacturing carseats.

Just strapping my kid's butt in a carseat doesn't indemnify the company that manufactures them. And, more importantly, they're REQUIRED BY LAW. EVERYWHERE in an automobile. Under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. NO WAIVERS AT ALL.

Britax? Still in business.
Evenflo? ditto.
Graco? ditto.

Pharma is full of cr@p with this one.

“The legal situation regarding vaccine mandates is based on a 1905 case, Jacobson v Massachusetts which upheld the state's police power to fine people who do not accept a mandated vaccine. Jacobson did not raise the issue of vaccine safety!! Just the power to fine was questioned. The Supreme Court reserved to the Federal Courts the authority to intervene in vaccination issues. The high court held that the judiciary is “competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned.” The issue has never been revisited by the court and it has never ruled on the situation where imminent risk of harm could be shown.” – Posted to AoA by: Ralph Fucetola JD | September 27, 2010 at 02:05 PM

Could a well-informed individual citizen draw up a legally-binding exemption and be prepared to go to court if an inoculation is mandated and administered against their will? See the Bill of Rights to our U.S. Constitution. It is extremely likely that MANY more injuries will occur due to government-mandated inoculations. MIGHT the injured have legal standing to raise the issue of the Constitutionality of the government-mandated inoculation before the U.S. Supreme Court, should the need arise? See also the Federal Declaration Judgment Act.

http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/53

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/09/observations-from-upenns-the-science-ethics-and-politics-of-vaccine-mandates-/comments/page/5/#comments

"Imminent risk of harm" sure sounds like "clear and present danger", “unavoidably dangerous”, and “unavoidably unsafe” to public health posed by vaccine mandates. Who has the burden of proof? How difficult a burden of proof is this to meet if a forceably-inoculated citizen were to raise the issue in federal court? It seems to me as though the "clear and present danger" and "imminent risk of harm" are different issues than a conscientious objection for personal religious beliefs. Might there be other Constitutional issues that could raised based on the Bill of Rights, e.g., First Amendment, Fifth Amendment (Equal Protection), Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection), Ninth Amendment (e.g. equal treatment under law)? Healthcare workers have fundamental God-given natural rights, too, including both enumerated and unenumerated Constitutional rights. The State does not own anyone's body. This is still a free country, isn't it? Government-mandated inoculations violate our natural God-given rights. They are immoral and sacrilegious. They offend our Creator. They violate both enumerated and unenumerated Constitutional rights. Personally, on conscientious religious grounds, I am adamantly opposed to government-mandated inoculations of any kind.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12660&page=41#p200178e99970041001

Liability for vaccine-related injury had been a tender topic with the drug manufacturers since the early 1960’s, when the courts had first begun to hand down adverse judgments. The cases were still rare then, most stemming from polio immunization, but the awards were large and the trend unsettling. In 1974 the problem ballooned in the case of Reyes v Wyeth (498 F2nd 1264). Wyeth was another vaccine manufacturer. The circuit court upheld a jury award of $200,000 to an eight-month-old infant who had contracted polio after receiving Sabin live-virus vaccine. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case; the award held. Wyeth had failed to extend an adequate warning of the risk of harm to the unlucky vaccinee. Never mind that the company had included in cartons for shipment a printed form which did contain adequate warning. Never mind that experts had testified at trial that this particular case was not vaccine-related. Wyeth would pay (and did). The suffering was real and Wyeth had the only deep pocket available.

To BoB and CDC, concerned for an assured vaccine supply the inference drawn from Reyes had been that if the government proposed to sponsor mass immunizations, but not to make vaccine itself it must take over the duty to warn, opening its pocket, or indemnify the private firms, or compensate victims directly. The manufacturers were eager to unload the Reyes duty. In their eyes it was a quite unreasonable cost of doing business. In the eyes of Sencer’s staffers, also many of Meyer’s and Seal’s, it was a cost of doing business that the manufacturers could all too easily avoid by dropping vaccines from their product lines. So at these staff levels there was a coincidence of interest with the private firms, premised on need for relief from the duty to warn.

At various times staff papers on the subject went to Cooper with no result. In January 1976, just before Fort Dix, the most elaborate of these was sent forward by Sencer as a draft proposal from Cooper to Mathews. Prepared by Sencer’s Assistant Director for Programs, Bruce Dull, it urged Federal indemnification wherever there was Federal sponsorship for immunization. The cover memo argued:

Manufacturer liability for vaccine-associated disability … threatens a predictable vaccine supply ….

A decision on the Secretary’s part to pursue legislation for public management of vaccine-associated disability would relieve the apprehension and anxiety of public hea1th and medical professionals and of biologics producers.

This memorandum may not have reached Cooper, much less Mathews, for it ran afoul of adverse views in Cooper's staff. The issue had been up before, positions had hardened. As an opponent recalled for our benefit:

Behind these arguments for indemnification there were a number of assumptions which were untested and unsupported by facts. For one, it was contended that if the manufacturers were not indemnified, they would all stop making vaccine. But the number of companies in this business had been diminishing for a long time, for reasons totally unrelated to liability.

We just couldn’t buy this—that continued liability would drive them out.

And there were other unsupported assumptions, just sort of out there, loping across the plains.

But more than a distaste for coddling manufacturers was working at the top of PHS. There also was concern about ramifications far beyond the immunization field. Indemnification for companies (or even compensation to victims) here could be a precedent almost across the board of public health programs. These were the cautious views of Donald Carmody, an office director on Cooper’s staff, professionally a lawyer, who played in-house skeptic about liability proposals. A year before Dull’s memorandum, BoB had sent up somewhat comparable proposals. One of Meyer’s aides had noted then:

Any provision for a Federal fund to provide such compensation will meet with objections from H, whether it be through amendment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, or, as CDC is attempting, through amendment of the PHS Act.

Carmody himself told us he thought the “H” meant him.

Beyond issues of substance and precedent were strong instincts on Cooper’s part for steering clear of questions where doctors were at the mercy of lawyers. One of his close associates remarked to us:

As for lawyers, doctors think lawyers are a pain in the ass. Cooper’s mind set was to keep lawyers out if you don’t want it screwed up.

All this was before the swine flu program.

Interesting timing for this judgement, since now is an especially dangerous time for those who have covered up the extent of damage done to humanity by the vaccine program. The bubble is getting closer to the surface.

Extracts from the link below:

"...Putting it all together, it seems quite plausible that batches of vaccines containing retroviruses that are infectious to humans have been going out for over half a century. Much of what I've written here has been known but ignored for a long time. The assumption was made that endogenous animal retroviruses couldn't harm people. It's becoming clear that this was a very incorrect assumption.
...
We have much still to learn about human MLV-related viruses. Is it even remotely possible that the findings reported in Lombardi et al were the result of contamination of their reagents? No more likely than that the retrovirus described by DeFrietas et al in 1991 was contamination. Had the CDC done something then, we could have prevented the autism epidemic and a second generation of infected people. Instead they buried DeFrietas' work by withdrawing all funding. Deja vu?"

In:
Cover-up and contamination theories
March 6, 2011
http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/03/cover-up-and-contamination-theories.html

Here’s the new government plan: Realizing how dangerous house fires can be, the US government has decided that each and every household be required to purchase and install an alarm system. This is a mandate, so anyone who is discovered without this system in their home will be heavily fined, chastised, and held responsible for “unnecessarily endangering” society. Since these alarm systems are seen to be so vitally important, the government enters into an agreement with the manufacturer to supply these alarms so that they are available everywhere. However, they also admit that sometimes, for unknown reasons, with no way to test in advance, these systems suddenly and inexplicably explode, maiming or killing the inhabitants. So the government grants the manufacturer legal immunity from prosecution for any liability for an “unavoidably unsafe product” by taxing the consumer to set up a “compensation program” for those unfortunate few.

However, when this sad outcome occurs (with increasing frequency), the victims find that their compensation is difficult to obtain because the judgment of a panel of “Special Masters” usually conclude that the owner of this device was either negligent or it was a freakishly random incident. They discover, to their horror, that even though their family members were killed or injured with these explosions, they are expected to purchase yet another alarm to replace the one that freakishly exploded. After all, it’s their civic duty to protect society, even if it means exposing themselves to potential harm. If they do not comply, they will certainly be shunned, but may also be punished by government agencies (including CPS) for endangering themselves and their children.

Despite the growing number of “claims” against this product, the manufacturer continues to espouse its safety, and calls anyone who questions its necessity “pro-fire” or “anti-science.” And finally “child killers.”

The owners of alarm systems that have not YET malfunctioned are angry and resentful of these overly-concerned families who just refuse to participate in the program…until the same thing happens to them or someone they know. Eventually, the government decides there may be ‘alternative’ methods for solving the problem of dangerous ‘house fires’, realizing there are many other, more effective, safer ways to avoid injury and death. Maybe that’s the real fairy tale part of this rhetorical analogy.

Woe to those who call evil good,
and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!

ISAIAH 5:20