Monday Morning Rally: NJ Call To Action to Pass Conscientious Exemption Bill
Clue In

No Pharma Liability? No Vaccine Mandates.

Liberty “Sure I am that this day - now we are the masters of our fate; that the task which has been set us is not above our strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us.”

- Winston Churchill addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress on December 26, 1941.

 No Pharma Liability? No Vaccine Mandates.

by Barbara Loe Fisher

On February 22, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court shielded drug companies from all liability for harm caused by vaccines mandated by government when companies could have made a safer vaccine. 

From now on, drug companies selling vaccines in America will not be held accountable by a jury of our peers in a court of law if those vaccines brain damage us but could have been made less toxic.

 If you get paralyzed by a flu shot or your child has a serious reaction to a vaccine required for school and becomes learning disabled, epileptic, autistic, asthmatic, diabetic or mentally retarded, you are on your own.

From now on – unless we stand up and draw the line on vaccine mandates - the government can legally use police powers to force every American to get hundreds of vaccinations or be punished while those, who are hurt by vaccination, can be more easily swept under the rug and left to fend for themselves.

Big Pharma Blackmailed Congress in 1982

To understand how this happened, we have to turn the clock back to 1982. That is when four big drug companies (Merck, Wyeth, Lederle, Connaught) blackmailed Congress by threatening to stop selling vaccines in America unless a law was passed giving them complete immunity from prosecution.

 The pharmaceutical industry knew they were in big trouble because the old, crude whooping cough vaccine in the DPT shot was causing brain inflammation and death in many children; the live oral polio vaccine was crippling children and adults with vaccine strain polio; and Americans were filing lawsuits to hold drug companies responsible for the safety of their products.

Supreme Court Allows Seat Belt Injury Lawsuits

On February 23, 2011, one day after the Supreme Court blocked lawsuits against drug companies for failing to make vaccines safer, they cleared the way for lawsuits against car manufacturers for failing to make seat belts safer.

 Civil Liability Is A Consumer Protection

Civil liability is a consumer protection. In the past, civil liability has protected us from wealthy tobacco corporations selling cigarettes that were once endorsed by doctors and the U.S. government. ….to read the whole commentary with live links to more than 50 references and to watch a video, click here  To watch a 90 second video message, click here.





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.

“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.

Theresa O

Zofie, I wouldn't be so excited about Japan. It took the Japanese government what? four days? five? to declare that it could find no link between the vaccinations and the deaths, and to give the OK to resume administering the vaccines:

I'm not sure which is better: clearly not giving a damn, and putting the entire onus on parents (like here in the US), or pretending to give a damn, and then caving to pharma anyway (like Japan). Either way, it stinks.

To me, a key part of "no vaccine mandates" is (1) educating parents about the choices that they *do* have and (2) showing vaccination-zealot pediatricians that we will find doctors who support our choices. I was extremely lucky to be in a Bradley childbirth class where the instructor talked a lot about the choices we'd have to make regarding medical interventions, and encouraged us to interview doctors ahead of time so we'd be sure to find someone who met our needs *before* we gave birth. (I was also extremely lucky that AoA came on the scene when my daughter was just six months old. Google is great, but having one source for a lot of important health information is priceless.)

Donna L.

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

Bob Moffitt

@ Bayareamom - EW - media scholar - zofie ..

I apologize that my comments have been so badly misconstrued by everyone.

I thought my comparision of this pediatrician's precautionary warnings regarding child "harness carriers" would provide an excellent example of the AAP's failure to urge all pediatricians to take the same common sense "pre-cautionary" measures when vaccinating children.

Indeed, if you read the pediatrician's precautionary warnings regarding "harness carriers" .. it is clear he fully understands there is no such thing as a "one size fits all harness carrier" .. and .. my comments were clearly meant to indicate to the AAP .. there is and has never been a "one size fits all vaccine".

Webster's defines "facetious" as "jokingly" trying to make a point on a serious subject .. so .. I humbly apologize for my facetiousness to all those who were misled by them


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.



I need to register my son for Kindergarten. I need to bring in proof of immunizations. They have a list of all "shots" that he supposedly needs for Kindergarten. The list is quite long. My child no longer receives vaccines. I am wiser now because I have educated myself on the dangers of vaccines(oh and the fact that my son stopped talking, eating, potty training, recognizing family members, amongst other things after his MMR shot) There is no mention of religious exempt forms(which I have already filled out but I know I will still get grilled on) It only mentions medical exemptions. Many parents in my school system (RI) do not know that they have options. Its so sad. So many parents I have talked to insist that they get their children vaccinated because they "have to" or their children won't be allowed to attend school. I tell anyone I can about the dangers of vaccines but its not enough especially when they are (vaccine)bullied by everyone else around them.


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.



Our son, now 17, received the HEP B vaccine at just 12 hours of age when I tested NEGATIVE as a carrier. The ONLY way one can contract HEP B is through either intravenous drug use, the swapping of dirty needles, promiscuous sex; multiple partners, and/or if the Mother is a carrier.

Do you know any newborns that fit most of the above criteria?

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky once stated during a lecture that, unless a newborn's Mother tests positive for HEP B at time of birth -- then giving that newborn a HEP B vaccine should be considered criminal assault. Further, he stated that antibody titers wane with this vaccine after 5 to 7 years at the most.

Know any 5 to 7 year olds that fit the above criteria?

There is NO need for most newborns or most children to receive the HEP B vaccine in the United States.

Our son reacted to his HEP B vaccine with severe jaundice and a low grade fever within the first week of his life. Pediatric staff claimed they did not know why our son was running a low grade fever. We now know, through our own research, that these reactions were due to the HEP B vaccine he received.

Once that vaccine goes in, you cannot take it out. Sure -- those that receive the vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter), should be closely monitored. But that isn't the point -- the HEP B vaccine - in giving it to our newborns, is most likely one of the most useless and senseless vaccines they have on the market today.

Janet Keith

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.


Bob, NO vaccines can be adjusted..... nor are ANY vaccines necessary. Hep B is horribly destructive to an immune system, as are any vaccines, but by delaying it a mere 2-3 months you are only kidding yourself thinking that is enough of a difference. Vaccines MAIME & KILL, PERIOD!! There is NO place for them in our society, or any society unless you are big pharma & want to make a ton of money w/out any kind of risk or liability.

I have 2 relatives who were victims to the horrible hot lots of vaccines in the 80's as infants, 2 years apart from one another (meaning one baby got a vax & had a reaction, then approx. 2 years later same thing, just a different reaction)... encephalitis (AKA polio renamed) for one & a stroke w/seizures for the other. When I read how common the reactions were then it makes me want to scream... the horrors inflicted upon my family when those babies both nearly died. I also got a vaccination at that time (oral polio) & I SPIT IT OUT... I can remember it all very well because I was 10 years old.

Plain & simple... vaccines ONLY benefit those who make the mega money off of them... don't kid yourself thinking there is any benefit at 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.


I really like feeling change coming. But, after sitting here 15 min, it all comes down to "F the herd."



“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.

"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.

Anne McElroy Dachel

It's good that you cite Churchill. Look at the fact that for years he stood alone warning about the German rearmament. His own party disowned him for sounding an alarm over the coming war.

We have a lot in common with Churchill. Our message is one no one wants to hear either.

Anne Dachel

Media Scholar

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.


You try to rationalize something, what is totally insane and cannot be defended. Children do NOT NEED all these vaccines at all, particularly Hep B vaccine is useless for 99 % of infants. With other vaccines, the issue is that those vaccinated get infectious diseases much more often than unvaccinated people, because their immune system is ruined. This in addition to neurological, endocrine, reproductive, and autoimmune diseases, which most heavily vaccinated people suffer from. Mass vaccination of children in the US with outrageous numbers of toxic vaccines (for profits) has created a massively sick nation. One has to wonder, who is that enemy of the American people, who has created this system of medical genocide.


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?"

Cover-up and contamination theories
March 6, 2011

Bob Moffitt

"On February 23, 2011, one day after the Supreme Court blocked lawsuits against drug companies for failing to make vaccines safer, they cleared the way for lawsuits against car manufacturers for failing to make seat belts safer."

We recently had a tragic death of an infant which has been pronounced an "accident" .. apparently due to the "harness type carrier" used.

The following comments on "harness type carriers" were made by a prominent pediatrician on the staff of a local major hospital:

"I wouldn't recommend them for someone so young. Anything that might constrict the ability of a baby to breathe is a problem. At that age, I tell my patients to carry the baby in their arms or use a bassinet ... newborns breathe at a rate of 40 to 50 times per minute and that their breathing is very shallow. It doesn't take much to influence that, so I would advise against using any kind of carrier that might make breathing more difficult. Harness carriers are appropriate for a baby at 2 months old, depending on his or her size. If you have a very small baby, you'll want to wait longer. I tell parents the harness carriers are a good thing to use at 2 1/2 or 3 months. Once a baby is big enough for a harness carrier, it's important that it be adjusted so the baby is able to move around. There should be enough space for the baby to be comfortable while upright and still able to curl sideways. The most important thing is to always monitor your baby. If you're paying attention, you'll see if heor she is uncomfortable or is having trouble".

One wonders if this "sound" advice explaining the problems of placing your baby in a "one size fits all harness carrier" shouldn't also apply to a newborn infant who is given a "one size fits all" HEP B shot within hours of birth?

Such as .. depending on the infant's "size" and not wanting to add unnecessary stress to the infant's fragile breathing .. delaying the HEP B shot until the infant is at least 2 1/2 or 3 months old?

Obviously .. since the HEP B vaccine cannot be "adjusted" to fit the "size and stress" of each newborn infant .. the importance of monitoring the newborn infant immediately after receiving the HEP B vaccine to see if he or she shows any signs of being uncomfortable or having trouble should remain a very high priority.


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.

Media Scholar

Liability has always been the goal of the large vaccine manufacturing drug companies.

It doesn't take much for people to understand the high volume biological warfare expected to take place inside the bodies of 6 to 8 pound babies.

Searching for something quite unrelated to the swine flu (H1N1) virus in the stacks a few weeks ago, I stumbled on the following government publications (warning – hearings were tightly bound):

- U.S. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. Swine Flu Immunization Program: Supplemental Hearings. June 28, July 20, 23, and September 13, 1976. (Serial Set No. 94-113). Washington: Government Printing Office, 1976, (SuDoc: Y 4.In 84:94-113).

Note discussions on “The Need for Indemnification Legislation” (p.6); discussions between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Dr. Theodore Cooper, Department of Health and Human Welfare (DHEW; p. 18-21) on insurance companies not willing to extend coverage to vaccine manufacturers and related Congressional Research Service report (June 22, 1976) on “exempting manufacturers of swine flu vaccine from liability” (p. 456). ***

- U.S. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee on Health. Suspension of the Swine Flu Immunization Program, December 17, 1976. Washington: Government Printing Office, (SuDoc: Y 4.L 11/2:Sw 6/976).

Senator Edward M. Kennedy chaired the Subcommittee. In his opening remarks, Sen. Kennedy (p. 1) states

“Over 35 million Americans received the flu shot thus far, and they have a right to know what exactly the situation is, as well as the need to be reassured that their health is not in jeopardy.”

In addition to numerous articles on swine flu program, the report also includes a February 1977 DHEW review of informed consent practices (p.21). Observe the Committee had serious concerns with manufacturer liability (p.2); Senator Jacob Javits (p.3) admits he was inoculated against the disease, stating the Guillain-Barré syndrome “may or may not have something to do with the swine flu shots.”

In 1976, as summarized by the Centers for Disease Control, the “national influenza campaign was designed to immunize nearly the entire United States population in fear of an influenza pandemic.” Research trials linked the A/New Jersey/1976/H1N1 vaccine with Guillain-Barré syndrome . The program was suspended in 1976.

Adam M

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!


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.)