Ron Paul's Stance Against Vaccine Mandates Featured on Huffington Post
Managing Editor's Note: Here is an excerpt from Ron Paul: No To Mandatory Immunization by James Freedman on Huffington Post. Paul came in second in NH, and Bachman opened the vaccine safety conversation the 2012 race. The topic is as, or more relevant, than it was in '08.
Ron Paul's libertarian ideology is dramatically revealed when you get him started on topics such as the War on Drugs, the FDA and forced immunization that draw on his background in medicine. Paul, a ten-term member of Congress who's hoping to pick up the Republican nomination for president, feels strongly that the federal government, in most cases, shouldn't be telling Americans what they can and cannot put into their bodies.
"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said. "The other thing they're doing right now is the government's doing this mental health testing of everybody in school and they're putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic drugs, which I think are very, very dangerous. So anything medical that is forced on us I think is bad."
What if a dangerous disease was spreading like wildfire? Would Paul cave and require immunization in such a dire situation?
"No, I wouldn't do it, because the person who doesn't take the shot is the one at risk..." he said. "A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."
Just as Paul wants to limit what Americans are forced to put in their bodies, he also wants to restrict the federal government's dictates of what Americans are allowed to consume.
"I want the [federal] government to stay out of it," he said. "I don't think the federal government should be enforcing laws against the use of marijuana in states like California, where it's been legalized for medical use... I just think the states should regulate it." Read the full post Ron Paul: No To Mandatory Immunization by James Freedman on Huffington Post.
Well put Mary!
Posted by: Benedetta | January 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Jessica,
You obviously do not have a child that was vaccine injured or you would not make a comment that the herd immunity actually protects the medically fragile. . .far from it.
Yesterday we had the memorial service for my niece's 13 month old son. The autopsy result was inconclusive so they called it SIDS. His mother is convinced something was wrong with him. He had his MMR, polio and varivax one week before he died. After the shots he had runny diarrhea and an ear infection. He was prescribed an antibiotic on Friday (five days after the shots), and he died the next day.
Considering many of us watched our perfectly healthy children change before our eyes right after a round of vaccines means that they were the "fragile" ones, only we didn't know it until they were vaccinated. Just like my niece's son.
Posted by: Mary | January 29, 2012 at 07:08 AM
As a mother that firmly believes that her child died as a result of these forced vaccinations ( less than a week after the three month shot) I am glad to see that someone is standing up for those who want to say no. He is right, it is the parents choice. My children are MY responsibility not the governments. They have no right to decide for me or my children. I think it has been forgotten that the government is for the people and by the people, not to control the people.
Posted by: Mother that was decieved | January 29, 2012 at 12:17 AM
I am very appauled with some of the responses here
When did everyone become such a genius
Those of you who have not seen what vaccines can do should probably just stfu
There are parents all over that have seen the negative effects of vaccinations and who are you to tell them differently, were you there? Did you witness it? If you have not been in the homes of these families I suggest keeping your uneducated responses to yourselfs
Posted by: Jennie | January 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Jessica, this is your question. How many children do we have to sacrifice to death and disability from vaccinations to save a few very frail children? If you are a mother that has chose not to vaccinate you have had this conversation with yourself many times. Suppose you have a perfectly healthy child do you vaccinate with known risk thinking I need to sacrifice my child because he might get a disease that he would survive like the flu but if he passes this onto a person with a life threatening illness anyway are you doing to for the "greater good". Imagine wondering what is going to happen to your vaccine injured child that can't care for themselves when you can't. It's heart breaking. Something to ponder...
Posted by: Diane W Farr | January 17, 2012 at 10:24 PM
have you seen what is "IN" the so called life saving vaccines?? Funny how the kids that I have met that aren't vaccinated are not only the healthiest kids I have EVER seen, but also the smartest...Americans love to just follow the heard. Can't think for themselves....DO YOUR OWN research people!!!! why would the government give a hoot about you and your kid? why would the the government want us healthy? Then how would the health industry make any money on us? Good luck filling your bodies full of poison....
Posted by: from me to you | January 17, 2012 at 09:17 PM
The only unfortunate piece to this argument is that not all immune systems function equally well. The number of children with immune disorders that today the united states is able to keep alive and help to lead productive lives, depends in part on "herd immunity". This is the idea that even if a few children are not able to achieve immunity to diseases such as measles, mumps or rubella (all diseases we currently require immunization against), the fact that the majority of children ARE immune will protect the medically fragile children. The diseases won't be able to spread easily or well when the majority of people can't contract them. We vaccinate our children not just for their sakes, but also for the sake of other children who's bodies can't produce appropriate immune responses. If I make a choice to forgo vaccination in my children, I risk not only their lives, but I risk the lives of other family's children, children who through no fault of their own, cannot benefit from the vaccines due to medical problems. Is that right? Just something to ponder...
Posted by: Jessica Hilliard | January 17, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Is freedom still worth fighting for? You bet it is! U.S. Rep Ron Paul MD opposes vaccine mandates and supports medical freedom. He is the only candidate who passes the litmus-test for elected office. He deserves our strong support. He CAN win, even as a 3rd party candidate, if need be. I believe that there are a lot of disenchanted democrats, independents, and undecideds in both parties, who would vote for him in the general election. I thought I heard that 40% of the electorate is independent.
Medical freedom, personal liberty, and autonomy over what goes into our bodies, are God-given rights, despite what pharma would wish.
http://www.canaryparty.org/
Ours is a well-reasoned, moderate position. We seek the right to refuse inoculations, abortifacients, cytotoxic chemotherapy/radiotherapy, genetically-modified food, fluoridated water, mercury-amalgam fillings, and the like. The State does not own our bodies!
In a world in which informed consent, the Precautionary Principle, the Declaration of Helinski, and the Nuremberg Code have been trashed by pharma cartel, the public is rightfully beginning to push-back.
http://www-.omsj.org/
Posted by: patrons99 | January 16, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Ron Paul would NOT LIE to you about autism - as, I'm sure, every other presidential candidate (inc Obama) and most politicians would.
He'd respect the scientific reality that ASD is a full body disorder, that humans have influenced its rise, and that both natural and medical approaches can influence/alter/reverse its trajectory. i.e. he'd talk straight with you!
Contrast that with the "party line" that denies everything (even common sense) and acts to deceive you about your child's condition and life potential (in order to protect the culpable).
The Autism Awareness "movement" is akin to the Ron Paul Revolution, in that it's working to restore common decency and truth. Indeed, it's about the innate human principles of freedom and liberty - and I see that the Autism Awareness aims to restore common decency and truth about what ASD is, what it's not, and what can be done to reverse the trend and/or best help those already affected (by considering all factors/data, unbiased, and making informed choices).
And, both are ridiculed by "the establishment" for their honesty and sensible ideals.
Ron Paul is laughed at for believing that people are inherently good, that diplomacy is better than bombs, that free will is better than government mandate, that being nice to each other is better than being intimidating and threatening. Autism parents are laughed at for omitting food allergens or giving nutrients to affect their child's health, for telling the truth of their child's experience/reaction with vaccinations, or for simply believing that their child has life potential beyond the hopelessness pushed by the establishment.
Ron Paul or no Ron Paul, the collective denial about autism should end - this year! No matter what you believe about 2012, it's clear we are living in changing times. Indeed, we must get out hopes up - no matter what others believe, no matter ANYONE'S bogus prognostication of what's possible.
There is no longer a "fence" to sit on - you either believe, or not believe.
I believe!
Martin Matthews
Posted by: Martin Matthews | January 15, 2012 at 07:15 PM
You need to contact NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center). They may already have a "call" alert out.
Shelly
Posted by: For Jim | January 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Well, I just noticed this piece. I, too, want Ron Paul to be our next President. I see that I am in very good company here, and that makes me happy. The extraordinary corruption in the CDC, FDA and NIH must be reigned in, before we are all in shackles and branded with the letters PC (PC - for pin cushion) on our foreheads by the vaccine industry so they can ensure a "guaranteed market" for all their products.
If you want any chance of freedom and individual liberty, or even if you simply think any part of The Constitution is worthy of preservation--
Vote Ron Paul in 2012!
Posted by: Not an MD | January 15, 2012 at 09:42 AM
I totally support Ron Paul's position on preventing any Govt from mandating vaccines and attempting to force drugs on people. He is right about prescription drugs prescribed by physicians being an enormous problem as well. Just look at the next story today about the death of the young man that was almost certainly caused by the psychotropic drugs he was given without his parents even knowing about them. Ron Paul is the candidate that will support our freedom and help to break up cartel-government relationships (read that Big Pharma, lobbyists and government agencies like the CDC and the FDA). As far as I can tell, Dr. Paul is the candidate with the most integrity and the guts to take on the powers that be.
Michael B Schachter MD, CNS
Posted by: Michael B Schachter MD, CNS | January 15, 2012 at 08:48 AM
Any chance Age of Autism can provide some support for West Virginia citizens? (perhaps an article promoting folks to contact WV legislators?) We have a bill that has been introduced in the senate (SB 50) that allows an opt out for vaccinations and changes the draconian rule of mandating vaccinations to participate in the education system. Thanks for considering!
Posted by: Jim | January 14, 2012 at 06:25 AM
I lived in Dr. Paul's congressional district for many years. I called a few years ago to voice dissent against a bill that was up for voting. Dr. Paul answered his own phone. We talked for 5 minutes. I remember feeling he genuinely wanted to understand why I disagreed with the bill. In the end he agreed to not support the bill. Dr. Paul may have some way out their ideas. I think American needs "out of the box."
Amanda stated "problem of regulating corporate mining and pollution in the hands of the regular mam." Please dont take this wrong - sounds like a CNN sound bite.
Dr. Paul does not plan to leave this to the regular population, although I guarantee he would never have allowed the vaccine compensation act. He advocates returning the power to the states. Your individual state would have the regulatory power not the federal government. Your state elected officials, people who may have been to or heard of your town, will be in charge of holding businesses in your area accountable and regulating those who can't seem to do right on their own.
Posted by: Mary B | January 12, 2012 at 08:45 AM
I agree with Julie,
The FDA, CDC, EPA and other federal organization, which are supposed to defend us from harm of big corporations, are so corrupted now that it would be better if they did not exist in the present form. The worst is of course the CDC, which conspires with pharma cartels in injuring and killing our children with toxic vaccines. I am also a former democrat and now I wholly support Ron Paul.
Posted by: veritas | January 11, 2012 at 11:26 PM
I agree Julie. Amanda, how are the FDA, CDC, and EPA doing right now - They are FAILING! Here's how Ron Paul explains regulation, "Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it."
I am an ex-democrat that will never vote for the "lesser evil" again. We need real change from a candidate whose word you can trust and is incorruptible. Go Ron Paul!!
Posted by: Julie Matthews | January 11, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Ron Paul can win big with the votes of majority of independents (who now constitute about 40 % of voters), 1/2-1/3 of dems and 1/3 of reps. The GOP will never support him, hence he must run as independent. It will be an essential revolution, which may bring sanity and prosperity to this country.
Posted by: veritas | January 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM
It will be interesting to see how far Ron Paul succeeds.
Isn't it usually those who support "Big Pharma" secure the positions?
Good Luck America, I hope Ron Paul has some influence.
Elizabeth Gillespie
Posted by: AussieMum | January 11, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Interestingly enough I think he could be a real uniting factor in our county. I have had many thoughts about how similar the tea party and the occupy protesters are to one another- both sides may object to that characterization. But it seems to me what both of those groups are saying is: government by the people, for the people. And ENOUGH with the corporate control of our country!
Posted by: Kristine | January 11, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Ron Paul is getting the same type of treatment by the media as Dr. Wakefield has. Dr. Paul is a tide turner and the establishment doesn't want that. They black him out, call him a "kook", "not-electable", all those verbal jabs to try to discount him to the people who allow the media to dictate their choices. We, as parents with kids on the spectrum, know how much time we put in to researching medical help, schooling and diet choices for our kids. Please take some time out to research our next President. Do not allow the media to tell you who is pretty enough, or has changed his mind enough to deserve your vote. Ron Paul has NEVER changed his stance in 30 years. He wants the country to be run by the Constitution, not the government. Period. I for one would love to be able to walk into a doc's office without having to defend my choice to not vaccinate! Or have the fear of forced vax. I wrote him in in 2008..I will vote for him in 2011!
Posted by: Leslie McElroy | January 11, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Thank you, Ron Paul.
Amanda, do you think the government is protecting citizens from fracking and pollution now? Heck no, govt is owned by the corporations, and communities have to rely on private legal represention to protect themselves. Just like the FDA does not protect us from the excesses of big pharma.
I never thought I would vote for a Republican in my life, but Dr Paul is the one sane and intelligent candidate in a gang of crooks and corporate drones, so he has my support.
Posted by: Julie | January 11, 2012 at 05:36 PM
I agree with Barbara - He CAN win! He needs our strong support - now. He supports medical/health freedom. He supports personal liberty and freedom. He supports a smaller, less oppressive, less intrusive government. He opposes vaccine mandates. He is the "real deal". He has passed the new litmus-test for elected office. No other candidate has passed the test. We don't need another "big government" Republican. We don't need another crony capitalist in office, letting the Pharma cartel continue running all over us.
Posted by: patrons99 | January 11, 2012 at 05:12 PM
While Paul has a refreshing stance on immunizing and the war on drugs - he is unfortunately pro-de regulation on corporations impacting the environment - and wants to leave the problem of regulating corporate mining and pollution in the hands of the regular man - the citizen on the street who would have no funds or power to litigate against a corporation who may, for example, be fracking in his backyard and polluting the local water supply. In this way it is hard to support Paul because his "hands-off" idealogy affects a lot of things where intervention by government is needed for the public safety.
Posted by: Amanda Copeland | January 11, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Wow!! Yes!!! Now I am curious to know Dr. Paul's thoughts on use of a surgical clamp on the umbilical cord at birth. Current protocol is to clamp the cord immediately after birth, against the advice of all of the traditional textbooks of obstetrics until about the mid to late 1980s.
If the newborn baby has not begun to breath, this is very dangerous. A period of anoxia even for a minute or two, before the baby can be resuscitated, may appear harmless. However, evidence available in the medical literature for more than 50 years now has shown that the auditory system of the brain is susceptible to injury from such a brief lapse. Language development is likely to suffer from even minimal impairment of the auditory sense.
A few obstetricians are beginning to understand the dangers of interfering with transition of respiration from placenta to lungs. See, for example
http://academicobgyn.com/2011/01/30/delayed-cord-clamping-grand-rounds/
Posted by: Eileen Nicole Simon | January 11, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Love that he's come out and said that. My parents really like him and if I were American I'd vote for him on that basis alone. I'd def be more of a Democrat but Obama seems to lack backbone and wants to he everybody's friend too much.
Posted by: Jen | January 11, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Amen Brother Doctor Ron! Love that man. The vaccine damaged community (which includes autism) should be totally psyched around promoting this man for office. Serious time and effort is needed to rally and organize for this man to WIN just as Doctor Andrew Wakefield CAN WIN! I for one am planning numerous strategies to raise awareness and federal reserve notes for Doctors Paul and Wakefield. I hope and pray the AoA family understands that asking the Federal Mafia for more is not the answer. The State and its Pharmaceutical Concubines are the ones that maimed and destroyed the world's most vulnerable and innocent; babies and children.
Posted by: ioneskye | January 11, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Actually, him being "the real deal" makes him THE MOST qualified for the position. I'm so freaking tired of the same old career politicians running for President....lying, making a grip of promises they don't intend to keep then running this country into the ground. We don't need Perry or Romney....that's the same old crap. We need someone who wants to take our rights back !!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Pamela | January 11, 2012 at 01:52 PM
If the poll ratings he has had thus far continue his profile will be raised considerably and his message given a good platform. That is probably as much political change as we can hope for.
Posted by: GH | January 11, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Obviously a man who can't be bought. The "real deal". Unfortunately that makes him unqualified for the position.
Posted by: Lori Orrico | January 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM
He can win. His following is gaining power and momentum. He is the true vote against corruption... the ONLY vote against corruption and FOR personal liberty and freedom.
Ron is the only person SAYING anything.
I am a seasoned apathetic non-voter who was depressed about our whole system, now I am actively engaged in supporting Ron Paul.
Posted by: Barbara, NJ, USA | January 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Do you think that if enough vote for him even if he will not win - that the message will get through to the rest of the thick headed politicians we are out here?
If so I will vote for him
Posted by: Benedetta | January 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM