See Trace Amounts in Atlanta on March 12, Free Robert Kennedy e-Book for Movie Goers!
Weekly Wrap: No, Senator Feinstein, Wakefield is Not a Fraud

Are They Going to Start Shooting Anti-Vaxxers?

Russia - GalleryPlayerBy Kent Heckenlively, Esq.

I couldn't help but read in the recent assassination of Russian dissident Boris Nemtsov (a former first deputy prime minister under Boris Yeltsin), a chilling glimpse of what might come to pass in our own country.

I'm a voracious reader of history and it's long struck me that the more you read of the past, you realize the same patterns tend to repeat themselves.  For example, in the run-up to the American Revolutionary War, the British could not fathom the idea that the Founding Fathers could negotiate with them on an equal basis.  It seems that even in the eighteenth century there were those who believed that to recognize both sides of an issue was an example of "false balance."

In much the same way, the white minority in South Africa, labeled Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" for many years until they finally listened to the better angels of their nature and started to negotiate a peaceful transition of power.  Today the Chinese level similar accusations against the Dalai Lama and his struggle for Tibetan rights.  Am I the only one to see in these situations the creation of an "enemy" who cannot be allowed to peacefully state their case?

If there's something unique about the American character it's our tolerance and even welcoming of dissenting views.  Our Founding Fathers realized that simply because people disagreed, it did not make them an enemy.  Indeed, I have long been impressed how even though John Adams disagreed on many important philosophical points with Thomas Jefferson, he still wanted Jefferson in his cabinet because he was impressed with Jefferson's intelligence and character.  If the thinkers of the Enlightenment gave anything to the American Revolution it was the idea that as human beings alive on this planet none of us has divine understanding or wisdom.  We do the best we can with our limited knowledge.  No man is God.  In as much as possible of human life there must be a space for people to make their own decisions, no matter how much we may disagree with them.

The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the suggestion that children be taken away from their parents to perform a medical procedure upon them with which their parents disagreed.  They would be appalled at the suggestion that the home addresses of people who disagree with vaccinations be published.  And probably most of all, they would violently disagree with a creation so vile as the so-called Vaccine Court, which takes away long-cherished rights from the American public and hands them over to the pharmaceutical industry and the government which supports them.

Think of the vileness of a system which allows an industry to keep documents relating to the safety of vaccines which are injected into children hidden from the public.  Think of the vileness of a system which does not allow "precedent" so that those claiming injury can point to compensated vaccine-injury cases involving autism, like that of Hannah Poling and others.  Think of the vileness of a media which enforces a near-blackout on important issues, like Italian court cases finding that the MMR vaccine leads to autism in some children, or refusing to cover the story of Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist who has claimed that for the better part of thirteen years the CDC has covered up evidence linking this same vaccine to autism?

I couldn't help but read the recent statement by Russian opposition politician, Gennady Gudkov, "If we can stop the campaign of hate that's being directed at the opposition, then we have a chance to change Russia" and think of our own movement.  I can't claim to be an expert in Russia, but it seems that tyrants usually play out of the same rule-book.

Deny that your opponents have valid claims.  Deny them access to the press.  Vilify them, and if that doesn't work, try and shame them.  Can any reasonable person watching what has been unfolding over the past few months in the vaccine issue honestly claim that this is not what has happened?

And when all of that doesn't work, what do the tyrants do?  They shoot those who will not bow down before them.  I am very scared.  I'm starting not to recognize my own country.  I pray, and I encourage you to pray as well, that the good American people who have been quiet for so long in this struggle, will finally wake-up and put an end to these injustices.

Kent Book PlagueKent Heckenlively is a Founding Contributing Editor to Age of Autism and co-author with Dr. Judy Mikovits of Plague: One Scientist's Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases.   Visit his website at Plague The Book. You can order the book HERE.


cia parker

A couple of years ago here, the school system got rid of the junior highs for eighth and ninth grades, and instead added eighth grade to the middle schools and ninth grade to the high schools. This meant deciding where to put all the students who would normally have gone to the junior highs, and shifting hundreds of students out of the junior highs and into other schools, and then changing the junior highs into middle schools.

That would be a possible solution to this problem. Parents who didn't want to vax their kids could send them to a magnet school for the unvaxed. In a few years, of couse, that would become the most popular school, the one with the healthy, intelligent students, and also the most crowded, as growing numbers of parents would also start to refuse vaccines. And then they could juggle and shift the student populations as needed. Until this wretched, miserable chapter of human depravity comes to an end.

cia parker

That's like saying that the state has the right to ban the religious instruction of the child by his parents, on the grounds that religion is nonsense and a strong and atheistic state is the only worthy instructor of moral values. Those who believe in God do not agree with this doctrine. Those who have seen severe vaccine damage in ourselves and our children know how dangerous vaccines are; those of us who have had the VPDs know how mild nearly all of them usually are and how beneficial it is for the child's longterm health to get the childhood diseases. You used the passive tense to express the idea that the child's interests "are generally held" to include not getting preventable diseases. Who is the unspoken holder of this opinion? Many parents and doctors hold exactly the opposite opinion, seeing the developmental strides our children make after a bout with feverish disease, the lack of autoimmune or neurological disease, the permanent immunity achieved to the childhood diseases, the robust immune system that takes on challenges and overcomes them. You appear to appeal to a deus ex machine who rules that vaccines are better than vaccine-preventable diseases: and if the god behind the curtain turns out to be a pharma bot, squeaking out his recorded message over and over, while the populace overrules him?

Godfrey Wyl
"The flaws in your argument are that 1) vaccinations free children from preventable disease, now and in the future...."

I wasn't making an argument so much as summarizing those which one can find in the case law. Again, Greg averred a fundamental parental right to not vaccinate, something for which I can find no specific basis. By contrast, there is a very strong legal tradition of "parental control over the religious upbringing and education of their minor children" (Wisconsin v. Yoder), etc. Greg's question itself was somewhat nonsensical, in that it postulated a choice between school vaccine requirements and, insofar as I could tell, overt child neglect.

It might be interesting to compare the law surrounding, for example, mandatory PKU testing, but I am not really able to undertake that just now.


The flaws in your argument are that 1) vaccinations free children from preventable disease, now and in the future 2) that freeing children from all diseases classified correctly or incorrectly as preventable, is in their best interests 3) the means of attaining this goal, vaccination, is in children's best interests 4) that the state should have the power to overrule parental authority in medical decision making in forcing the treatment of healthy children with experimental drugs.

IMO, it is criminal to deprive children of developing permanent life long immunity to measles, mumps, chicken pox and rubella, by giving them unreliable temporary immunity through vaccination. This only delays susceptibility to adulthood when the diseases are more serious. The medical community has no idea how this first vaccinated generation now in middle age, will do when elderly. No idea whatsoever if the MMR boosters will be safe or effective for them. That is a potential public health disaster our society is facing that no one wants to talk about.

No one knows for sure what the effects are of so many vaccinations on the human body or of how these vaccinations affect the human microbiome. We do know that research has shown a significantly lower incidence of ovarian cancer in women who have had mumps as children. The immune factors developed from wild mumps natural infection kill cancer cells. This is not the case with vaccination. Measles is now being used as a treatment for cancer. It turns out that the measles virus likes to attack cancer cells. Annual flu vaccine recipients are turning out to have decreased immunity. What does this do to children when they start getting this drug at 6 mos of age and every year after? It is all an experiment. No one knows what will happen to these kids as they age. We do know, however, that veterinarians that were vaccinating dogs and cats yearly, were seeing grave illness from what they call overvaccination, and they have backed off on vaccinating so often and have advised vets to give animals only those vaccines that each animal, by geography, is at high risk of contracting. Animals do not get every vaccine available just in case, because vets realize that makes animals sick. But not pediatricians, it's all vaccines for all children. Too many vaccines is not a concept that the AAP will officially entertain (even if individual pediatrians know). And unlike vets, who admitted the connection between vaccines and illness and responsibly took steps to protect their patients from further harm, when children become sick after vaccines, acute or chronic, it's all a coincidence and has nothing to do with vaccines, according to the AAP. Further, and most unbelievable, vets removed thimerosal from animal vaccines in the early 1980's, while human children continued to be administered this known poison in multiple doses at levels far beyond allowable limits, and even after this was called to the attention of the medical community, thimerosal continues to be present in trace amounts in many children's vaccines, and fully in the flu vaccine given to pregnant women and children as young as 6 months of age.

The point is despite what the snake oil salesmen claim and judges buy into, the facts, the science definitely do not support the dogma that vaccination is unequivocally the right thing to do for anyone and that parents who choose not to vaccinate are harming their children.


A chemistry professor I had said he would never get a vaccination. What does that tell you?

Who is William Thompson ?

@Godfrey Wyl

Is it true that measles infections had declined 98% in the Twentieth century BEFORE the introduction of the measles vaccine ?

Whooping cough incidence declined 90% before the Pertusis vaccine was introduced ?

Scarlet Fever has been all but wiped out - there is no vaccine ! (this is true for several other killer diseases too)

For every single case of measles nowadays , there are 7000 cases of Autism . We are in the midst of a CDC driven vaccine led Hg-olocaust . Hg-enocide

And you wont admit it ? In fact are you paid to deny it ?

Godfrey Wyl


"The parent have the right to not vaccinate the child...."

Where in law do you find this right? Parental autonomy is grounded in the principle of beneficence, but it is always secondary to the child's autonomy interests--both present and future--which are generally held to include freedom from preventable disease.

People who are forced by the government to damage their healthy children,will never ever stop telling people about it, and fighting to prevent it happening again.. And there may well be people at their schools witnessing these teenaged regressions who will now have their own stories of witnessed vaccine injury.

Actually Hera, even though the arguments surrounding the legal grounds for vaccine mandates fascinate me, I think these proposed mandates are just a ruse, and I don’t expect much militancy in enforcing them, even if such bills were to pass. The reason is not that they are ‘nice’ people, but, as I have mentioned numerous times, to enforce such laws would involve them also biting the bullet and vaccinating their own kids, or grandkids, and they are not prepared to do this.

Reflect that with MMR there is already an approaching 95% childhood vaccination rate. An important question to ask then is who are the remaining 5% refusers? We know they are highly educated and affluent, so what jobs would we expect them to hold? No doubt, we would expect doctors, lawyers, politicians -- and you guessed it -- the people pushing for vaccine mandates are likely the same people exempting their kids or grandkids. I am not a gambler, but I would wager serious dollars that more than half of politicians poised to vote on mandates have obtained exemptions in some form or another for their kids or grandkids. They are too damn smart, and perhaps have too much inside information to do otherwise. Autism is simply not worth the risk for them.

Another obvious question then is why would these people raise the matter of vaccine mandates? And, perhaps, an even better question is why would phama pressure these ‘ elite friends’ to pursue mandates when even with current exemptions childhood vaccination compliance is still 90% plus? Why rock the boat if the vast majority of ‘sucker’ parents are vaccinating their kids, and these ‘elites’ who know better also have their ‘outs’ via exemptions. The answer is as long as there is an ‘anti-vaxx movement’, or more correctly, people who are waking up to the dangers of vaccines and the vaccination fraud, there is the potential of a sudden wholesale rejection of the program. This is the real nightmare scenario that pharma is seeking to avoid, and why they would pressure their ‘friends’ to do something about it. So, it’s not so much about pursuing 100% vaccination compliance, but preventing the collapse of the program. Mandates then essentially serve as safeguards against this.

So vaccination mandates would be seen as win for pharma even if they are not enforced. And seriously, why would there be a necessity to enforcing them? The sheeple would likely continue to vaccinate in huge amounts, and, if they were to stop, pharma would have its vaccination mandates insurance card that they may opt to cash in. Their shareholders need not worry. And, with non-enforcement their ‘elite friends’ can also keep having their ‘outs’. Indeed it would be a win-win situation for everyone. Sure a few hardnosed anti-vax ‘dregs’ may also pass through and skip vaccines, but why worry about their insignificant numbers.

Yet, even considering how mandates may help pharma in this way, it’s still easy to see how the vaccination enterprise is bound to implode. For the program to remain viable the ‘elite club’ of those not practicing what they preach must remain small, but with each passing day, as more info gets out and the scam gets exposed, this becomes harder. It involves the business exec on the golf course asking his politician buddy what’s really going on with the autism rate, or the celebrity during halftime of the ballgame asking his doctor comrade what he thinks of the CDC whistleblower news, and we all know what happens when a friend tells a friend, and so on and so on. For the vaccination scheme to function, a significant proportion of the populace must remain in the dark. There can never be a situation where the populace becomes knowledgeable to the point that everyone wants vaccines for others but not for themselves. No amount of mandating will ever save the program at such a point.

And here we arrive at the ultimate threat to the vaccination program. It is not exemptions, but the free flow of information. Considering this, we can see why vaccine proponents would strive so hard to muzzle ‘anti-vaxxers’, and why they incessantly toss out their transparent complaint of ‘false balance’ when we are allowed to be heard. Suppressing action, however, may be one thing; suppressing the free exchange of info is quite another.


HIV + children are allowed in school despite their potential to infect.. Privacy of medical history is indeed a right. And then there is the right to informed consent on medical procedures.
( Hint; forced to make a medical decision at gunpoint or at risk of being thrown into jail is not uncoerced consent.)

it is quite possible that some children will be injured or killed by this mandate. In fact it would be sensible to assume that those who use philosophical exemptions do so most likely because their family is at high risk of vaccine injury. ( I.E. A previous sibling or family member was already injured by a vaccine)

You might want to consider the fact that even if all you care about is the vaccine companies bottom line, that if these children get injured or regress at 10, 12 16, 17, then that whole "they would have been injured anyway" thing goes out the window.

. People who are forced by the government to damage their healthy children,will never ever stop telling people about it, and fighting to prevent it happening again.. And there may well be people at their schools witnessing these teenaged regressions who will now have their own stories of witnessed vaccine injury.

You might want to think about exactly what you are pushing for.


@Cia and Bob

Good point guys, but I suspect they are not likely swayed by reason, just what they can get away with legally.

Thanks so much for the legal opinions. So, essentially you don't think there will be strong grounds to compel the state to provide free public education to the unvaxxed child? Yet, essentially, things are left in a limbo. The parent have the right to not vaccinate the child, but in order to attend school the child must be vaccinated. What then if the parent refuses to vaccinate, and not being able to homeschool, keep the child home education-less? Do you feel the state would have grounds to take action against such a parent exercising her fundamental right, as Linda suggested?

Godfrey Wyl

No such right at the federal level, I should have said. A survey of the individual state constitutions would be necessary to determine whether any of them contains such a right. It would nonetheless likely be unavailing on the same grounds as Workman.

Godfrey Wyl
"I keep pondering the legality of vaccination mandates...."

There's not much to ponder.

"I understand the previous court rulings that a parent right not to vaccinate their child does not permit the parent the right to expose other kids to diseases by sending the child to a public school. Here essentially rights are being played-off against each other."

Not really, no, but I'm short on time, and the exchange over "unavoidably unsafe" would make me question the value of going into it in any event.

"Yet, what about the child's right to a free public education?"

The shortest answer is that there exists no such right in the U.S. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). If a state offers public education, it must do so on equal terms for all children. Vaccine requirements are laws of uniform applicability. End of story.

cia parker

What about the fact that all the schoolkids whose parents want the vaccines have had them? Being immunosuppressed is no longer a valid excuse for not getting all the vaccines. If the vaccines work, the kids are "protected." If they don't work, why should any child be required to get a dangerous, ineffective vaccine? What about the fact that children HAVE to have exposure to many different kinds of germs to develop effective immune functioning? Why should my child be deprived of that experience because of vaccine mania?

Bob Moffitt

@ Greg

"I understand the previous court rulings that a parent right not to vaccinate their child does not permit the parent the right to expose other kids to diseases by sending the child to a public school."

If the sole basis of denying parents their right "not to vaccinate" rests on the premise their "unvaccinated child will expose other kids to diseases" .. how do they explain the following .. if true as I have read it to be:

"Johns Hopkins Patient Guide warns the immono-compromised to "avoid contact with children who are recently vaccinated" .. and to .. "tell friends and family who are sick, or have recently had a live vaccine (such as chicken pox, measles, rubella, intranasal influenza, polio or smallpox .. not to visit"


"St Jude's Hospital warns parents not to allow people to visit children undergoing cancer treatment if they have received oral polio or smallpox vaccines within four weeks, have received the nasal flu vaccine within one week, or have rashes after receiving the chicken pox vaccine or MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine".

In any event .. we shouldn't have to ask this question ourselves .. as it is long past TIME public health officials make a clear and difinitive statement regarding "shedding" that occurs after receving a "live virus" .. and .. if that "shedding" is a high risk to the immunocompromised?

I mean how hard should this be?


I believe the answer would be that failure to vaccinate results in forfeiture of the right to a free education. It's not so much that the child can't expose other kids as much as a penalty for not complying. If the parents then fail to provide an education to the child, it is educational neglect and the parent would lose custody to the state. But in many places I do believe that online public schooling is an option. However, you'd think that since the child educated with public school materials and lessons at home would be exempt from vaccination because the child isn't attending a brick and mortar school with other children. I don't think that's the case either. I think the child would still be required to comply even though he is spending his school days by himself with a computer.


I keep pondering the legality of vaccination mandates and I am still having a tough time squaring things. I hope someone here will offer their take...

I understand the previous court rulings that a parent right not to vaccinate their child does not permit the parent the right to expose other kids to diseases by sending the child to a public school. Here essentially rights are being played-off against each other. Indeed then the unvaxxed parent's bid to challenge the mandate on grounds that it is in violation of medical liberty, or informed consent is on shaky grounds-- albeit, I would think the severity of the threat that the unvaxxed child poses would still have to be established. Yet, what about the child's right to a free public education? Does barring the unvaccinated child from attending public school absolves the government of its responsibility to provide free public education for the child? I previously asked what grounds would the government have to take action against a parent who cannot afford to homeschool her child and decides to keep the child home education-less. The government cannot say the parent is denying the child an education since they are the ones who are barring the child from school. Also, as long as they are respecting the parent right to not vaccinate her child they have no grounds to take action against her. And, really, why must the parent wait for the government to act, can they not sue the government to honour its obligation of providing free education for the child. Indeed unvaxxed public schools may be the only solutions.


I can no longer in good conscience say the pledge of allegiance. That America is no longer about truth, justice, freedom, liberty, and equality. My allegiance is to the principles of honesty and integrity.

Isn't this what they really want, "I pledge allegiance to the vaccinations of the United States of America...."

Birgit Calhoun

It's not just about the money. It is about having been so wrong for so long. It's about pride. It's about what they thought was true. They thought mercury was a medicine, and it turns out mercury really is a poison. If one checks the history of mercury, there has always been the mantra: the dose makes the poison, not realizing that any dose of mercury is poisonous. It's just that you can't see the effect as easily as in other poisons.

Birgit Calhoun

I completely agree with you. The word controversy trivializes the real issue. There is no controversy about the toxicity of mercury. It's toxic no matter how you slice it. The only thing that can be said about people who insert the word controversy regarding mercury have something at stake. They are ignorant and have no clue how mercury poisons. There are people who call themselves scientists and they have no clue because mercury is not your run-of-the-mill poison. Organic mercury damages very slowly. Even a deadly dose does not usually kill overnight. It may take months. Correct me if I am wrong, as far as animal vaccines go, I understand Thimerosal was removed from veterinary vaccines already in the 1930s.

six of one

There was no context for the analogy of the killing of Boris Nemtsov, but there's two versions of this in the media.

One version is convenient to US war footing in the fight to get a NATO base in the Ukraine, which breaks a slew of written and unwritten agreements-- the idea that Putin had Nemtsov "offed." Putin is no angel-- he's been implicated in assassinations of journalists-- so it's not completely implausible. The other version is that Nemtsov's killing was a false flag to trigger a "color revolution" to bring down Putin, who some say had nothing to gain by getting rid of Nemtsov and everything to lose. Also not completely implausible considering that the US and EU installed a neoNazi regime in Kiev in response to many different contentious issues with Russia-- Snowden being given asymlum, the banning of GMOs, and as part of a Keystone pipeline scheme to supplant Russia as Europe's major supplier of natural gas.

But either way the analogy works.


..."At the same time politicians & doctors who are politician wannabes, know that they don't want to go into any election year with the baggage of being instrumental in removing citizens rights..."

I agree with much that you've said, Danchi, but somehow, I don't think Richard Pan gives a damn about 'baggage' in removing citizens' rights. The guy is truly despicable...


Me too, Cia.

Lying, thieving bastards, the whole lot of them.


I think the worst thing exempters can do is fall into politicizing this issue. As with Doctors who want vaccine choice or Doctors who say vaccine are poison toxic constructs not suitable to inject into human being, there are politicians on both sides of the rail that support the vaccine industry either openly or covertly behind the scenes and they, like the Doctors are singled out by the media. The question to ask is why? There is an agenda behind the constant focus on certain individuals and it has nothing to do with vaccines. The vaccines issue is just an opportunity. Just like the Disney psych op. It was an opportunity to pounce on the American people and I do believe that the measles episode was planned months in advance, probably when the CDC/Vaccine/Government realized the Ebola psych op was not having the effect they had hoped for. But I digress.

In the rev-up to any political campaign there are people that TPTB want out of the picture so they are targets as far as 4 years before a national election. Clinton kept saying she would never run again after she lost to Obama but no one believed her and all the little spies in Washington have been snooping around her people most likely since she left the Secretary of State position. She clearly intends to run. Christie & Paul also have made it clear they want the nomination. That Washington inner circle you read about on some political blogs and the big money people already have certain people in mind to run and to prevent any one from mucking up the path to victory, such as the 3 mentioned, they have to be removed. I don't know if these unseen forces had anything to to do with the Disney episode or it was just an opportunity that fell in their laps but with the country already at odds over vaccines all they would have to do is tell a few eager beaver reporters to ask the potential presidential candidates what their position is. Clinton, Christie & Paul, whatever position they take they are going to piss someone off. They are a means to an end. Whatever their position is, they will lose supporters and would have been better off saying no comment.

As far as those on the local & state level, we know they want access to the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. Little do they know that the revolving door doesn't apply to them. They are just pawns, useful idiots and when the time comes to discard them-out the door they will go. In the meantime, they will use their political and medical influence to follow the agenda of big pharma but no matter how much the genuine pro-vaccine Americans may want every child vaccinated by 2, they don't want anything to do with mandatory-just short of because in their souls they know if they give away their power for what they think is security or safety-they will never get it back. They've done this once with their support of the Patriot Act. It's probably the same group of people who supported that nefariousness piece of congressional legislation. At the same time politicians & doctors who are politician wannabes, know that they don't want to go into any election year with the baggage of being instrumental in removing citizens rights. Whether they realize it or not they are on a slippery slope. If in years to come they "forget" what part they played in this sad episode of American history-YouTube will be there to remind them. The entire politicizing of this is just another distraction.

Joy B

Make no mistake Catherine, there is no US 'Liberal Left".

At least not one with representation or voice which isn't immediately suppressed from all other sides.

This actually has to be be fixed first, before the actual business of policy change and respect for human rights can start.

Laura Hayes

Thanks, Autismmom!

I should have mentioned that I lifted a couple great sentences from Cynthia Cournoyer's excellent book "What About Immunizations? Exposing the Vaccine Philosophy" and a sentence from Neil Miller's excellent article last week here on AoA :)


@CT teacher:

..."We should really be honoring John Adams as the most important FF who did the most to bring about the revolution and consequently our freedom. There were many men who did more than Jefferson. Yet, history has decided that we should honor and revere Jefferson. Do history books lie? You bet they do. Just read what they say about the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK. They adhere to the accepted govt position in spite of evidence to the contrary. The powerful elites have always controlled that info, just like they do today..."

YES. And I've been learning some of the above in more ways powerful than I'd ever thought possible.

Unfortunately, far too many have yet to learn the above...

cia parker

You're right, my head is spinning too. I've voted Democrat for decades for reasons of social justice. And now suddenly I find that the Democrats have become the vaccine fascists, and some of the Republicans seem to be the more humane and reasonable. I've told several friends that at this point my vote is up for grabs. They say Oh, no, you HAVE to vote Democrat, because they.... And I say, Oh, yeah? What have they done that has helped me and my daughter in ANY way? And they don't respond to my letters and phone calls. They just want their personal gravy train and votes because they can stamp the word Democrat on anything they say or do? Well, no. That's not the way it works. Hilary Clinton believes in vaccine mandates? Well, Hilary, I've supported you guys for twenty years, but this is where we part ways. Bye-bye!

cia parker

I have a book by Dr. Don Hamilton, DVD, on homeopathic treatment for diseases in dogs and cats, in which he says that other vets often use the word "controversy" in talking about the issues in pet vaccines. He says there is no controversy, he has seen many examples of how vaccines destroy or kill the pets they were supposed to be helping. There is no controversy.

cia parker

Maybe if they could just replace vaccines with really expensive new drugs they might be willing to admit the failure and dangers of vaccines, but not otherwise. This is all about the money, the public health thing is just the story they give to the public. There's just no racket to be built on health-giving measures such as nutritious, balanced diet, reduction of drugs and vaccines, breast feeding, and herbal, vitamin, and homeopathic remedies.


Laura, I'm definitely cutting and pasting crediting you of course..that is awesome.

CT teacher

Bayareamom- I agree with everything you said about Jefferson. It is all too true that he was a scoundrel who nonetheless spoke and wrote inspiring words---and many of them plagiarized from the Constitution of Virginia. The words of the Declaration of Independence are his enduring legacy. Yet it is he whom we revere as the most important Founding Father. We should really be honoring John Adams as the most important FF who did the most to bring about the revolution and consequently our freedom. There were many men who did more than Jefferson. Yet, history has decided that we should honor and revere Jefferson. Do history books lie? You bet they do. Just read what they say about the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK. They adhere to the accepted govt position in spite of evidence to the contrary. The powerful elites have always controlled that info, just like they do today. That's why we only hear how safe and effective vaccines are, and that vaccines have saved us from dreadful diseases like polio, diphtheria, etc, etc. Whoever controls the press, shapes public thought and opinion. The press is a powerful ally or foe, depending on which side you are on. The power of the press is directed against us and that is difficult to fight.
I fear this push to eliminate our medical and religious freedom.

go Rand

They do not want to SHOOT ANYONE. How could they expect to get away with that ???

They just want FORCED Vaccinations, which is the same thing.

Jeannette Bishop

Forced vaccination on someone who has observed the risks (immediate loss of life, loss in life expectancy, or loss of quality of life) seems kinda close to the same thing to me.

It's a little baffling to me how so many physicians (and some very supportive supporters) seem to have such a high opinion of their opinion (or their profession's founding product) to the point that the idea of forcing it on someone is acceptable, moral even, but it doesn't occur to them that such a vaunted profession (who came up with such a wonderful product) should be able to find a better way to provide health protection that doesn't require "sacrificing a few" (kind of like a pagan religion, seems to me) nor require mental gymnastics to maintain the blindness that I see daily. All it would take IMO is a little acknowledgement that improvement is possible. Yeah, it's not really possible to prevent mortality in a mortal existence, but we seem to be a little too willing to make having a healthy life in the meantime a major achievement, one that maybe doesn't have to be so major.

Catherine Tamaro

Interestingly, the tactic of publishing home addresses is one used by the right to life movement. Suddenly the left, which has long defended the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies and pregnancies, is all in favor of force and coercion. Apparently once the child is born the parents have no further right to privacy and no right to make decisions about their children's bodies. The liberal left is now advocating totalitarianism while the conservative right defends freedom. My head is spinning at the reversal of positions on both sides.


..."The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the suggestion that children be taken away from their parents to perform a medical procedure upon them with which their parents disagreed. They would be appalled at the suggestion that the home addresses of people who disagree with vaccinations be published. And probably most of all, they would violently disagree with a creation so vile as the so-called Vaccine Court, which takes away long-cherished rights from the American public and hands them over to the pharmaceutical industry and the government which supports them..."

You know, Kent, I've always enjoyed reading your posts; you never cease to inspire. But I have to say, on this one issue, I would respectfully disagree.

You stated, "The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the suggestion that children be taken away from their parents to perform a medical procedure upon them with which their parents disagreed."

This may have been true for SOME of our Founding Fathers, but I would daresay this would not be true for all. Some of those same Founding Fathers were slaveholders. "All Men Are Created Equal," certainly did not apply to the slaves, nor to women and children in those days, either.

Lest we also not forget, those same Founding Fathers were the Elites of their day, just as the Elites who are now running our same Government, today.


..."Jefferson owned slaves. He did not believe that all were created equal. He was a racist, incapable of rising above the thought of his time and place, and willing to profit from slave labor."

"Few of us entirely escape our times and places. Thomas Jefferson did not achieve greatness in his personal life. He had a slave as mistress. He lied about it. He once tried to bribe a hostile reporter. His war record was not good. He spent much of his life in intellectual pursuits in which he excelled and not enough in leading his fellow Americans toward great goals by example. Jefferson surely knew slavery was wrong, but he didn’t have the courage to lead the way to emancipation. If you hate slavery and the terrible things it did to human beings, it is difficult to regard Jefferson as great. He was a spendthrift, always deeply in debt. He never freed his slaves. Thus the sting in Dr. Samuel Johnson’s mortifying question, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?"

"Jefferson knew slavery was wrong and that he was wrong in profiting from the institution, but apparently could see no way to relinquish it in his lifetime. He thought abolition of slavery might be accomplished by the young men of the next generation. They were qualified to bring the American Revolution to its idealistic conclusion because, he said, these young Virginians had "sucked in the principles of liberty as if it were their mother’s milk."

"Of all the contradictions in Jefferson’s contradictory life, none is greater. Of all the contradictions in America’s history, none surpasses its toleration first of slavery and then of segregation. Jefferson hoped and expected that Virginians of Meriwether Lewis’ and William Clark’s generation would abolish slavery. His writing showed that he had a great mind and a limited character."

"Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery..."

I still consider those in our camp to be in the minority, for if truth be told, the majority of Americans, and others abroad, vaccinate their children and truly believe it's the correct, even moral, thing to do.

I find it interesting at this time in our history that those of us who considered ourselves 'free' are now feeling the pinch of suppression. Certainly not perhaps in the manner in which Black Americans felt re segregation (and feel today as well, i.e., Ferguson, etc.), but nonetheless, it is compelling to see how this is all unraveling.

Yes, it is a scary time in our history and for those of us who have witnessed our children's vaccine injuries (and deaths in some cases), it is really frightening to witness the downright vitriolic statements emanating from our media and public toward those of us who have vaccine injured children (and to those of whom simply choose not to vaccinate).

Another snip from the above article:

"At his magnificent estate, Monticello, Jefferson had slaves who were superb artisans, shoemakers, masons, carpenters, cooks. But like every bigot, he never said, after seeing a skilled African craftsman at work or enjoying the fruits of his labor, "Maybe I’m wrong." He ignored the words of his fellow revolutionary John Adams, who said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free."

"Jefferson left another racial and moral problem for his successors, the treatment of Native Americans. He had no positive idea what to do with or about the Indians. He handed that problem over to his grandchildren, and theirs."

"The author of the Declaration of Independence threw up his hands at the question of women’s rights. It is not as if the subject never came up. Abigail Adams, at one time Jefferson’s close friend, raised it. But Jefferson’s attitude toward women was at one with that of the white men of his age. He wrote about almost everything, but almost never about women, not about his wife nor his mother and certainly not about Sally Hemings..."

Do you really feel our Founding Fathers would have even blanched if those same children of those slaves they held were forcibly vaccinated?

Women and blacks certainly had to fight many years later for their right to live on equal terms with their counterparts. And in areas in our country to this day, are slave/sex rings, kept hidden/underground from prying ears and eyes.

I find this paragraph from the above linked article rather poignant:

..."In spite of these rare abilities, Jefferson was not a hero. His great achievements were words. Except for the Louisiana Purchase, his actions as president fall short. But those words! He was the author of the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph begins with a perfect sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Those words, as the historian Samuel Eliot Morison has said, "are more revolutionary than anything written by Robespierre, Marx, or Lenin, a continual challenge to ourselves, as well as an inspiration to the oppressed of all the world." Eventually, with Lincoln, who articulated and lived these truths, and slowly afterward, the idea made its progress."

But did 'deeds' follow these words? Was TRUTH put to deed?

The answer is NO.

All men should be considered equal; all SOULS were created EQUAL. But as history has shown us, there have always been a certain group of men/elites who consider(ed) themselves more equal than others.

So this battle that those of us here at this site are now facing is really nothing new. We're simply yet another minority of whom the majority wishes to vilify, shame and ridicule because of a BELIEF SYSTEM held by this same majority. It's just that our 'camp' if you will, has never before (most of us at any rate) witnessed this sort of backlash and downright hostility of which we are witnessing today.

So I sit here this morning, typing away and as I continue reading through this Smithsonian article I just pasted above, I start really wondering what it must have been like for the slaves held by Jefferson, a man of whom dared to write (or proffer up) "All Men Are Created Equal."

I can still remember Whites Only signs in certain areas of Ohio when I was a little girl, placed at certain restaurants and/or restrooms.

Have we REALLY TRULY been FREE all this time? Or have we been really nothing more than birds living in guilded cages?

Maybe this world has never been the world we thought it was. And just perhaps we're all just now starting to realize that it's never been...

Laura Hayes

Thank you, Kent, for this great article. It reminds me of an essay I wrote this week for not only the CA legislators I visited, but also for other parents in CA, and for every similar rights-stripping bills are being proposed across the nation, or are already in place. It's a bit long for a comment section, but I think very pertinent. Here it is (permission for anyone to cut, paste, and use):

Measles: an acute (i.e. short-lived, not chronic), contagious viral disease, usually occurring in childhood and characterized by red spots on the skin, fever, and cold-like symptoms.

Question: Is this the description of a disease that all America should be in a fearful frenzy about? In America, we have been taught to fear the diseases for which there is a vaccine. Furthermore, the word “epidemic” is used far more loosely when there is a vaccine for a disease than when there isn’t.

This frenzy has been media-created, and we must ask why. Our media has become dependent on advertising dollars from pharmaceutical companies, and therefore, their primary focus now appears to be to do the bidding of pharmaceutical companies, or risk going out of business.

Fact: Merck, the maker of the MMR vaccine, is in serious legal and public relations trouble at the moment (i.e. multiple lawsuits regarding lying about its MMR vaccine; a doctor from the CDC was recently granted official whistleblower status so he can safely disclose the fraud perpetrated by the CDC and other government officials with regards to both the MMR-Autism link that was discovered then carefully covered up, and about the thimerosal-tic-Autism link, that was also discovered then carefully covered up; and it is now common knowledge that Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, has caused thousands of severe adverse reactions, including 220 deaths as of Jan., 2015). Could it be that this Disneyland measles hype might not be completely legitimate (as many cases of purported measles have not been lab-confirmed)? Is it possible that a relatively minuscule number of cases of measles has been immediately capitalized on by the very company who could turn it into a huge profit for themselves, while at the same time potentially quieting all of the allegations against them? Our legislators must ask this question and do their research.

Fact: For the past 2+ decades, the measles vaccine has been responsible for far more deaths in the U.S. than the actual disease. In well-nourished children, measles is not only not a threat (it is quite benign), it actually confers many important benefits for the child, including: lifetime immunity; the elimination of acquiring measles later in life when it will be far more serious; the ability for females to pass on measles immunity later in life to their children via breastfeeding (a highly overlooked point, and a benefit of acquiring natural measles that our nation’s vaccine program doesn’t take into account, which now leaves infants in a vulnerable state with regards to measles…and that vulnerability can be blamed on our government regulators); and we are learning more everyday about how acquiring natural measles in childhood protects against many types of cancers later in life, and against leukemia in childhood (thus, by vaccinating children with the MMR, we are forcing them to forfeit, for life, the anti-cancer protection of naturally-acquired measles).

Fact: During the same timeframe this year that slightly more than 100 cases of measles supposedly occurred in the U.S. (only a fraction of the 140 were lab-confirmed), more than 13,000 cases of Autism were diagnosed based on CDC's reported 1 in 50 statistic. Which is of a true epidemic nature, and which should we be far more concerned about?

Fact: Vaccines have a long history of injuries, deaths, and failures. Furthermore, we know that there is vast underreporting in all three of these areas. Even the FDA and CDC admit that, at best, 1-10% of all adverse vaccine reactions, including death, ever get reported. Vaccine failures also are largely underreported as doctors are loathe to admit them, and are also prone to misdiagnosing patients based on their vaccine status (e.g. if they’ve had the vaccine for polio, then this paralysis or respiratory failure can’t possibly be polio; or, if they’ve had the MMR vaccine, then this rash can’t possibly be measles). There is no system in place that is properly monitoring what vaccines are doing to the health and development of our children…none. Furthermore, our government continues to refuse to do the one study that would settle parents’ questions once and for all: a comparison study of both the short- and long-term health and development outcomes of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children. You need to ask yourself why that it is, and what they surmise those results would conclusively reveal to the public.

Final Fact, and perhaps the most important: Parents who have taken the time to educate themselves about vaccines (which are “safety tested” not against placebos, but against other vaccines, combinations of vaccines, or against adjuvants, which are the ingredients in vaccines most likely to cause adverse reactions), about vaccine ingredients (a long, disturbing list of known neurotoxins, including mercury and aluminum; known and potential carcinogens, including formaldehyde and anti-freeze; and other ingredients which have no business ever entering the human body, much less an infant’s muscle tissues, bloodstream, and brain, such as polysorbate 80, aborted fetal materials, animal viruses, etc.), about our nation’s vaccine program (which has never been studied as it is recommended to be administered), and about the fraud and corruption which underlie the unholy trifecta that exists among pharmaceutical companies, government regulatory agencies, and medical lobbyists and trade industry groups…these parents will NOT allow, under any circumstances, their children to be vaccinated with all of the recommended vaccines, and for many parents, they will allow NONE.

Are you, as a California legislator, willing to forcibly remove children from their parents if their parents have come to the careful decision to not vaccinate their children? Are you willing to jail their parents? Are you willing to inject someone else’s child with 69 pharmaceutical products, each of which carries myriad risks, including permanent disability, chronic illness, and death? Are you willing to have children then placed in foster care as their parents serve jail time for not complying with vaccine mandates? Are you willing to break up families like this?

Are you willing to do what has been done under fascist regimes of the past, specifically, force risk-laden, potentially-fatal, medical procedures and treatments on others, in this case children, without prior, voluntary, and informed consent from their parents? If you are, then you are no different from the fascist rulers of earlier times. You would willfully be violating The Nuremberg Code, to which the U.S. signed post-WWII, which was written to FOREVER AVOID forced medical experimentation on others as happened in Nazi Germany. Think about that, long and hard. Is this what you really want to do? Is this the legacy you want to leave?

PLEASE VOTE NO ON SB 277. Vaccine choice is a fundamental human right. Please uphold prior, voluntary, and informed medical consent in the state of California.

Angus Files

I think the word liberty is a word we don't see at all these days and boy don't we know it.



I'd like to talk about that word controversy. I swear, sometimes vaccine safety
Activists just shoot themselves in the foot. The only people who should be
Using the word controversy in any discussions of vaccine safety or effectiveness
Anymore are the people involved in attempting to silence dissenting opinions.
Yet time after time vaccine safety and effectiveness advocates invoke
The word in their articles over and over and over as if the issue still
Contains valid controversy that needs to be acknowledged somehow.
How many studies will it take before activists will stand strong and preface
Every argument with the fact that there is overwhelming science confirming
The numerous and varied limitations to vaccine safety and
Effectiveness without re projecting the propaganda machines attempts
To controversialize the issue. Every time the word controversy is used it
Creates a niggle of doubt that gives any young new parent to the issue
Permission to disregard your view. Drop the word and we will at least
Not be undermining our own stance. Drop the word and we'll be that much
Less confused by who our friends are vs those being paid to undermine the need
For improvement in pharmaceutical testing.

Bob Moffitt

"Deny that your opponents have valid claims. Deny them access to the press. Vilify them, and if that doesn't work, try and shame them."

Sharyl Attkisson described the US media's method to "vilify, deny and shame" as "controversialize":

"The PR officials wait until the story is published to see how much the reporter really knows. Then they launch a propaganda campaign with surrogates and sympathizers in the media to divert from the damaging facts. The officials controversialize the reporter and any whistleblowers or cirtics to try to turn focus on personalities instead of evidence. They start whisper campaigns saying that the critics are paranoid and agenda driven".

Although Sharyl was writing about "reporters" .. her description of the media's well-established pattern to "controversialize" ANYONE who dares offer a divergent opinion or fact .. are quickly attacked by organized campaigns .. determined to turn the focus away from those inconvenient opinions and facts .. focusing instead on the "personality" of the whistleblower or critic .. which inevitably leads to the mean-spirited "name calling" we have all been subjected to.

The most recent politicians to have been "controverisalized" are Rand Paul and Chris Christy ... who "dared" offer .. (in my humble opinion) ..rather tepid opinions that parents have a right to participate and have some influence in the decision of vaccinating their child.

Obviously "controverisalization" works .. because .. anyone witnessing what happens to someone who dares raise questions regarding the "safety and efficiency" of vaccines .. such as .. Jenny McCarthy and Dr Wakefield .. would be fearful of the severe consequences both individuals paid .. which include .. being subject to years of vilification and demonization .. loss of careers and opportunities .. their names and reputations all but destroyed in the "court of public opinion".

That's a very high price to pay .. simply for speaking "truth to power" .. in what has become the U.S.A. today.

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.)