Anne Dachel Interviews Tony Muhammad on CDC Vaccine Safety Accountability
Dachel Media Update: Watch Atlanta Town Hall Meeting On CDC Whistleblower

I Respectfully Ask Mr. Kennedy (and All Americans) These Questions

Question markBy Laura Hayes

Last week, I respectfully posed 3 questions to Mr. Kennedy in the comments section of an AoA article, as he continues to be an active voice across the country speaking about mercury in vaccines, corruption at the CDC, and the removal of our right to a jury trial following vaccine-induced injury and vaccine-induced death here in America.  I am hoping he will answer these questions soon.

The questions I posed are not just for Mr. Kennedy, however.  They are questions for every American.

Here are the original questions I posed to Mr. Kennedy:

Do you support vaccine mandates?

Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?

Do you support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?

This many years into Mr. Kennedy's involvement with: the many poisons, toxins, and health-destroying ingredients in vaccines; the documented rampant failures of vaccines worldwide; the vast corruption underlying our nation's vaccine program from manufacture to mandate; the many chronic illnesses and developmental disorders now plaguing our children in never-seen-before numbers, despite our spending more per person on "health care" than ever before, and at the same time as the number of vaccines given has more than tripled; and perhaps most importantly, the endless and countless reports from parents worldwide about the HORRORS that have befallen their children would certainly seem that Mr. Kennedy would be ready and willing to answer these 3 questions without reservation, as all else hinges on the answers to these 3 questions.

The ONLY way one can protect oneself and one's children from the known and yet-to-be-discovered dangers of current vaccines, and from the dangers of newly-approved and mandated vaccines in the future, is through EDUCATED FREE WILL. Without the unfettered and unrestricted ability to decline vaccinations, this medical tyranny will not only continue, it will increase.

Not only is educated free will the only way to protect oneself and one's children from vaccine harm, it is the only way we are going to be able to change the immoral, unethical, and deplorable behavior of big corporations and powerful government agencies.  We must restore our right to say "yes please" or "no thank you" to any product and to any government recommendation.  We must be able to vote with our dollars in order to change corporate behavior and we must be able to refuse government recommendations, as each has the potential to be faulty, dangerous, or not personally healthy or beneficial for ourselves or our children.

It is also imperative to remember that the maximum legal infringement on a person's rights that a government can morally and ethically impose with regard to infectious disease is quarantine.  

Furthermore, self-quarantine should be required of anyone who receives a live-virus vaccine since clinical trials have shown that people can and do shed the live viruses for which they were vaccinated, up to 4 weeks post-vaccination (maybe longer). 

If this logical and public health-protecting step were required, far fewer people would opt for live-virus vaccines, which would then change the behavior of the vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies.  These companies would then be forced to produce inactivated vaccines to replace the live-virus ones, said to be safer but not as effective as live-virus vaccines, which is why inactivated vaccines include toxic, inflammation-causing adjuvants.  If consumers were then properly informed of the risks of the adjuvants used, they might not opt for inactivated vaccines, either. Once again, unfettered and unrestricted personal choice would affect the behavior of the vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies. 

It is easy to see how a regulatory agency acting appropriately by requiring self-quarantine for those who choose known-to-cause-contagion, live-virus vaccines, in tandem with the agency's and doctor's provision of full disclosure of all known vaccine risks and dangers, would drive changes in the marketplace that would make for a safer world with healthier people.  We do not have that right now.

If we Americans are not in full and unabashed support of individual and parental rights, so that we can exercise our educated free will, then we can kiss our free society goodbye...and say hello to tyranny and fascism. Currently, we are on the fast track to both tyranny and fascism. As Kevin Barry so eloquently asks numerous times in his excellent book Vaccine Whistleblower, who will have the moral courage to do what is needed right now?

Mr. Kennedy, AND everyone else involved in this fight to save our children and ourselves from this vaccine holocaust and current medical tyranny, needs to possess the wisdom and find the moral courage to boldly and confidently answer these 3 questions in the only way that will restore our God-given, fundamental-to-all-humans, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms. 

I will be happy to go first. Here are my answers:

Do I support vaccine mandates? An emphatic and unequivocal NO.

Do I support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination? A resounding YES.

Do I support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? YES, immediately.

Even if one were to remain fiercely pro-vaccine, that should not keep one from answering the questions as answered above.  Banning vaccine mandates does not ban vaccines...anyone who wants them can still get them.  Supporting individual and parental rights to decline vaccination should not be a problem for anyone who is pro-vaccine, because once again, they can still get the vaccines they want, and because if they are pro-vaccine, one can assume that they believe vaccines will keep them safe, so they should feel protected.  And, one can still be pro-vaccine even if the 1986 Act is repealed, as it would afford them more protection under the law should they or their loved ones experience vaccine-induced injuries or death.

The new mantra our community needs to embrace, publicize, and socialize is:  ALL ROADS LEAD TO THE FULL RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND PARENTAL RIGHTS.

We have already successfully made the case that vaccines contain dangerous, poisonous, and health-destroying ingredients, that vaccine failure is rampant, that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and increasingly common, and that vaccine-related fraud and corruption are obscene. Now we must focus our efforts on fully restoring our individual and parental rights, which includes banning vaccine mandates and repealing the egregious 1986 Act. Anything else is futile.

Written by Laura Hayes, mother of vaccine-injured children, one of whom suffered catastrophic injuries post-vaccination resulting in what doctors like to call “Autism", versus the iatrogenic harm that it was.  Laura is determined that we fully restore individual and parental rights in this country, including the right to decline vaccinations without government interference.  She is also determined that we repeal the egregious 1986 NCVIA which has resulted in incalculable harm to the children of the U.S.A., and beyond.


In addition to my original questions to Mr. Kennedy, I posted 6 additional comments that might be of interest.  Here they are, newest to oldest:


Thank you for joining the discussion that is very important for our community to have.

When Mr. Kennedy first entered the foray, "kicking and screaming" as he likes to say, it was because he learned that vaccines contained mercury, an environmental pollutant and potently-harmful, in some cases deadly, toxic element that he focused on in other areas of his work.

Since that time, he has been made aware of numerous other potently-harmful, in some cases deadly, elements, chemicals, substances, and viruses of all sorts contained in vaccines. He has also been made aware of their synergistic toxicity.

Additionally, he shows us by what he says that he is clearly aware of the corruption that exists at all levels from vaccine manufacture to vaccine mandate...that not one level of the process is without corruption, deception, and fraud.

So, for him to continually chant the same tired mantra in every speech and during every interview at this point seems absurd, and should make one question why he won't now expand his mantra to something like this:

"I used to be fiercely pro-vaccine. As a matter of fact, I vaccinated all 6 of my children according to the CDC's recommended schedule, and I believed that vaccines had saved millions of lives. Knowing what I now know about the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines...about the fraud, deceit, and corruption that underlies them and keeps them propped up, and that are withheld from the unknowing and trusting public...and that there is actually no proof that vaccines have saved even one life because the studies that would prove such a claim have never been done...I can no longer say that I am fiercely pro-vaccine...I can no longer say that if I had a child born today I would vaccinate him or her according to the CDC-recommended schedule...and I can no longer state with any confidence that vaccines have saved millions of lives. I now know too much to make such statements any more.”

An updated mantra would not have kept him from testifying in the states where he testified this past year, nor would it have kept him from speaking at the rallies where he spoke this past year. I think it would make what he says that much more powerful. He, like all of us, has had a learning curve, and he has learned a lot since he first began to speak about the mercury in vaccines. It only makes sense that he would update his message as he learns more and more. To not do so raises many questions in my mind.

If we are to protect our children, and ourselves, from government-mandated harm, and possible death, via vaccines, we must fully restore our individual and parental rights to decline vaccinations, rights which have wrongfully been taken from us. We have successfully made the case that vaccines contain dangerous, poisonous, and health-destroying ingredients, that vaccine failure is rampant, that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and increasingly common, and that vaccine-related fraud and corruption are obscene. Thus, to focus our efforts now on anything other than fully restoring our individual and parental rights, which includes banning vaccine mandates and repealing the egregious 1986 Act, is futile.

If Mr. Kennedy, and anyone else, thinks it is strategically best to focus on just mercury-laden thimerosal, consider the following. If one extrapolates forward, and if all mercury was removed from all vaccines, including during the manufacturing process, then what? We are still in an untenable situation. We are still living in a country where mandates are increasing, exemptions are being tightened and in many places being eliminated altogether, and vaccines will still be unsafe, in addition to still being ineffective. Yet, Americans would still be forced to accept scores of them, beginning in infancy, possibly in utero, to participate in society. So I do not understand how it is a wise or viable strategy to continue to focus solely on the one vaccine ingredient, thimerosal. That strategy will not keep us safe from vaccine mandates, and it will not restore our individual and parental rights to say no to vaccines as we see fit without government interference.

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 31, 2015 at 01:42 PM

To add to Sylvia's latest comment, I will share a thought of mine that I have posted in similar form before in an AoA comments section:

As the mother of vaccine-injured children, I become infuriated when I hear people spout off that they are "fiercely pro-vaccine". That is analagous to telling the mother of a child who was injured or killed by a drunk driver that you are "fiercely pro-drunk driving". Millions of us parents worldwide are giving firsthand testimony that our children were permanently harmed, and in many cases killed, by vaccines, and then someone has the audacity to continue to state over and over again that they are "fiercely pro-vaccine" right in front of us, without at least pairing it with "but I am fiercely anti-mandate". To state this pro-vaccine mantra in today's world filled with the vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed is horridly insensitive and I find it intolerable.  

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 30, 2015 at 12:12 PM


Thank you for your very thoughtful response :) 

I feel incredibly strongly about the urgent nature of what is at stake, and our side's messaging is critically important to achieving our goal, which in my view, is the complete restoration of individual and parental rights to make any and all medical decisions for oneself and one's children without one iota of government interference. If we don't achieve that goal, our efforts will be nothing more than academic and completely futile. 

It is a God-given right, and the most basic fundamental human right, to decide that which we allow or don't allow into our bodies and those of our children. To quote Mary Holland, "Without that right, what meaningful right do we have?" It has been taken from us in this country, in violation of The Nuremberg Code and in violation of other international codes of ethics to which the U.S. has agreed.

State by state, and now even at the federal level, the vaccine profiteers want to completely eliminate our right to say no to scores and scores of vaccines. California has already fallen, and I'm quite sure that other states will fall in the coming year if things don't change. Without the right messaging, we are in big trouble. You know, I know, most AoA readers know, and Mr. Kennedy knows that it most certainly is not just the mercury in vaccines and a few bad apples at the CDC that are the problem. It's SO MUCH MORE and ALL roads lead back to fully restoring individual and parental rights with regard to any and all medical decisions. Period. If that's not our messaging, how will we ever achieve what we need to remain a free society free of medical tyranny? 

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 05:35 PM


If only we had time to be giving people breaks...we don't.

The concern that I, and many others, have with Mr. Kennedy is his sole focus on thimerosal. His messaging seems to imply that if the mercury-laden thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the vaccines would then be safe. That is not true, and therefore, such messaging is dangerous. 

Below is a favorite quote from a colleague that I have shared before. It sums up the danger of stating only partial truths and of not exposing all of the safety and efficacy problems with vaccines, not to mention the lack of need for them, and the danger of not focusing on the many risk-free ways to protect, maintain, and enhance one's health without the use of risk-laden vaccines:

"As long as vaccines are perceived to be harmless, then mandates will be considered to be harmless. Just an inconvenience. They will just be forcing people to do something good for them they don't like, like eating your vegetables.”

This is the path I fear Mr. Kennedy is heading towards...i.e. if the thimerosal is removed from vaccines (as though it's the only problem with vaccines)...then vaccines will be fine, and mandates are okay and a good idea. (He certainly does not state any opposition to vaccine mandates, or support for the parental right to refuse one, some, or all vaccines for their child, in this New York Times editorial of his.

Our most basic and fundamental human right to refuse vaccines is under fierce attack and being eliminated at a breakneck pace. We do not have time to be giving people breaks at this point in time.

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 11:47 AM


I caution you not to be so sure that Mr. Kennedy is against vaccine mandates. There are many things that Mr. Kennedy has never actually stated publicly, but for which people make assumptions, as with your assumption that he is against vaccine mandates. We need to be careful not to give credit where credit is not yet due, especially on such a critically-important point.

And vaccine mandates ARE the crux of the matter. In a free society, there can NEVER be vaccine mandates, medical mandates, or forced medicine of any sort. In a free society, the safety profile of a medical treatment or procedure is irrelevant. What is relevant is the freedom to decide and choose what one does or doesn't allow into one's body, or that of one's child. Period. Without that right, what meaningful right do we have?

In my 2nd rally speech here in CA in opposition to SB277 (), I talked about how The Nuremberg Code nullifies and forbids vaccine mandates. The Nuremberg Code should have superseded and overturned the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision. 1947 should have marked the year that immoral and unethical vaccine mandates were forever banned. But it didn't. And until we ban vaccine mandates, and all forced medicine, we will forever be fighting these same battles against medical tyranny which profoundly threaten each and every one of us.

It is my sincere hope that Mr. Kennedy will very soon boldly and publicly announce that he is FIERCELY OPPOSED to vaccine mandates, and that he will heroically call for a permanent ban on them. It is also my sincere hope that he will publicly call for the immediate repeal of the 1986 NCVIA. If not, then he and I are not fighting for the same things, not at all.

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM


I was never "pro-vaccine". Listen to the beginning of my radio interview with Jeanie Keltner for a recap if interested.

I don't agree that "we were all" pro-vaccine. What we were was improperly informed, and therefore unknowingly ignorant, thanks to a many-decades-long propaganda campaign filled with LIES that were then taught as truths in our schools, by our doctors, and in all forms of media.

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 29, 2015 at 09:46 AM

To Mr. Kennedy:

Do you support vaccine mandates?

Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?

Do you support the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act?

Posted by: Laura Hayes | October 28, 2015 at 12:21 PM


Betty Bona

I promise this will be my last effort to convince you. In a perfectly functioning governmental system, I would agree with your choice to exclude a strong advocate who is not "all in". But this country we live in is so, so far from perfect. It is so corrupted that there is nothing a small group of citizens will be able to accomplish if the goal is contrary to the interests of the big powers. Just look at what has happened in the past, which I'm not sure is all proven and it's certainly not the general public's belief, but it's what I believe.

If the powers don't like the science, they simply force the scientists to cover it up and create new science. If a whistleblower pops up, they stall, keep the story quiet, and pay off a few people if possible. If a spokesperson is too close to gaining the ear of the general public, the powers neutralize them by either ruining them or actually ending their life. If a media outlet is saying things contrary to the interests of the powers, they pull a few strings and shut them up - even NPR. If an elected official is getting too unmanageable, it's easy to ruin them or corrupt them with money. If a group of citizens is getting to close to a little success, it's child's play to stick a few roadblocks in front of them like maybe insuring the loss of a few boxes of signatures. What about that Supreme Court Bruesewitz case. That was sure favorable to the powers. They can do all this without the general public suspecting anything. What makes us think the balance of power has suddenly shifted so that we will be successful in quashing mandates?

You say that parents have all the information on the internet; that it's there for the taking, but that information has been hidden, corrupted, and totally manipulated by the powers. Scientists and other PhDs that I know have done some research at my request, but they stop after they read in a few sources like NPR that there is no real problem with the vaccine schedule or the CDC. The sources where they find concern for the schedule are on sites like the AOA or blogspots of alternative doctors. Then they tell me that, "we get our science from very different sources". Every time! I get nothing more if I present videos of parents' speeches, but at least a raised eyebrow if I present Posey's plea to Congress or one of Kennedy's speeches, but it's usually still not enough to convince them to look further unless the illness of a close relative suddenly comes into a new light for them.

I wish we parents of injured kids could go it alone with our absolutely meritorious claim for no mandates, but we're like an insect, a nuisance, in the ears of the powers, easily swatted away. We need massive numbers to support us, and I don't think we have it. If we start gaining in numbers, a new vaccine preventable disaster will befall our country, we can just predict that. But once fraud is fully disclosed, it's not easy to cover it up again.

I think exposing the fraud is essential and time is crucial. The more time goes by, the more opportunities we give the powers to further bury the truth or solidify the general public's fear of disease. Each time we take a step forward, the powers swat us back to square one. Maybe not all the way back, so there is a little progress, but still so far from gaining the ears of the general public. If a new disease presents itself, we'll be back further than square one. I really do think time is of the essence. That's why it bothers me to see such a strong part of our side breaking off into a splinter group.

david m burd


You make an excellent point about people recounting they had a flu shot with no serious adverse reaction, so they completely believe in the flu shot, and get one every year. But, of course if they did indeed have an adverse reaction they then chalk it up to coincidence.

Terribly, 6-month old babies can't describe their flu shot adverse reactions even as they might be breathing their last (i.e. SIDS or SUID). It goes to show advertising works, and ironically even more so to the more "intelligent" and educated.

Laura Hayes

I just finished rereading through all 79 comments posted to date. A few thoughts have come to mind as I read each comment for at least the 2nd time:

Currently, with vaccine mandates the norm in most states, vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies have a coerced, and in some cases, forced-with-no-out, captive market. This is especially so because the average citizen is not aware of their exemption rights, rights which still exist in some states, although perhaps not for long. Thus, most people believe the "no shots, no school" sign, whether it reflects the state's vaccine laws or not. Additionally, many people will lose their jobs if they don't comply with job-specific vaccine mandates. It is flat-out wrong for ANY industry to have a coerced and/or forced-with-no-out captive market, for too many reasons to list here. Banning mandates would END this coerced/forced captive market, from which many other positive outcomes would flow.

As I have already stated, as have others, for those who have done their own research and decided they do not want to comply with their state's vaccine mandates, knowledge of vaccine problems and provision of informed consent is useless in the states where exemptions have been so severely restricted as to be unusable, and in the states where they have been completely eliminated (with the exception of medical exemptions, which doctors are loathe to give, and which typically are given only after a child has nearly died from being vaccinated). Again, the only solution for individuals and parents everywhere is the banning of immoral and unethical vaccine mandates. Period.

Vaccine profiteers continue to keep us busy, state by state, fighting vaccine exemption and mandate bills and laws, so much so that it greatly reduces the amount of time we are able to spend sharing what we know with others one-on-one and hosting educational events about the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines, the lack of need for them, and the corruption behind them from manufacture to mandate. Instead, we spend our time: trying to meet with and educate ignorant, arrogant, and corrupt legislators; sitting through rigged hearings with bought legislators where those opposing exemption restrictions and mandates are silenced, treated abominably, dismissed, ignored, lied to, and maligned; organizing and participating in conference calls, meetings, rallies, protests, referendums, and recalls; all the while trying to schedule and pay for "child" care for our young adult children, and children of all ages, who've been vaccine injured and who require round-the-clock care and supervision, and/or our children whom we've protected from vaccine injury and for whom we are fighting for the right to continue to protect them from vaccine-induced harm and death. Again, banning mandates would PUT AN END to this endless merry-go-round of fighting bill after bill, and laws already in place, that threaten, further restrict, and eliminate exemption rights, and/or increase the number of vaccine mandates, and/or increase the number of people for whom the mandates apply.

In this age of the internet, the information a parent needs to learn about the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines, the lack of need for them, and the corruption that underlies our nation's vaccine program is there for the taking. We must remember that. It is there, in spades, just like the information is there for people who want to research carseats, BPA-containing products, genetically-modified foods, glyphosate's dangers, cribs, etc. Of course it is my wish that EVERY parent would choose to put in the time and effort to do their own thorough research regarding vaccines, but ultimately, it is their decision and their choice. If they choose to unquestioningly listen to their doctor, the CDC, and the nightly news in this day and age of endless information, information that includes the fact that there is indeed a vaccine controversy, then they will have to live with the consequences. There are now so many excellent resources which one can access, from books, to blogs, to documentaries, to presentations available on YouTube, to info on PubMed, etc. For those who do choose to do their own thorough research, for it to be meaningful and for it to have an impact, they must then have the freedom to make their own decisions. Once again, that can only happen if we BAN vaccine mandates.

If vaccine mandates remain in place, these battles will never end. If individuals and parents don't regain the unfettered and unrestricted right to say no to vaccinations, these battles will never end. If the 1986 Act isn't repealed, these battles will never end. And if these battles never end, neither will the harm and devastation caused by vaccines.

And finally, one must ask why anyone involved in this fight would be reticent to state their answers to the 3 questions I posed.

cia parker

The latest from the hilarious, perceptive Levi Quackenboss: Christmas gifts for the pro-vaxer.

Including horse blinders because life is just easier if you don't have to look at the vaccine-damaged children all around you. I think we're reaching critical mass soon.

cia parker


I'll let Kennedy fight against mercury in vaccines as he sees fit. It's a good cause, but, again, I think it's a loophole which will soon be filled. My old boyfriend two years ago was very surprised when I showed him a Fluzone flier from the supermarket, recommending "preservative-free" vaccine for older people and pregnant women. All others, including six-month old babies, were cleared for the standard, mercury-containing version. At first he said, "But they banned mercury in vaccines ten years ago." I said only in vaccines made primarily for children, even though children are supposed to get annual flu vaccines since 2004, they aren't primarily for children and so are allowed to have mercury. He asked "Are you sure they have mercury?" I said I was, that "preservative-free" was a euphemism for "mercury-free." I think he's typical: once Americans are shown the facts, which Kennedy is doing, then they'll ban mercury from the flu vaccine as well. The larger question is whether the recognition of how dangerous mercury in vaccines is will lead to appropriate compensation for the millions of us who have suffered severe and ongoing damage from the mercury.

We don't have mandates here in Missouri either. I got another exemption form a few months ago for my daughter. Our congresswoman Vicki Harzler wrote me that she was completely opposed to mandates.

I'm also unhappy at the lack of candidates to vote for, I may just not vote next year. I'm not sure if taking on government and industry corruption and collusion has any chance of success. It all comes back to educating individuals on the dangers of vaccines and the evil in the institutions perpetuating the lucrative status quo. Once enough individuals say Hell, no!, then the status quo will change. Eventually.

My elderly neighbor is one of those who believes the propaganda about better diagnosis, no real increase, has nothing to do with vaccines anyway. More "friends" say Well, we were all right, even though we got the DPT and MMR. My children are all right, except for asthma and allergies, even though they got all the vaccines. Vaccines are the greatest invention of all time, have saved billions of lives. My neighbor gets a flu vaccine every year and gives her cats all the yearly, deadly boosters. I've told her the flu vaccine paralyzed my father for the last three years of his life and caused Alzheimer's in my mother. But everyone says Well, I'm not like that. I get a shot and have no reaction at all. Too bad about your family. But hey, wrecking your health and minds for life is OK if it prevents a single child from getting measles. Lucky for me I'm totally impervious to vaccine damage, and absolutely have a horror of catching flu, chickenpox, or pertussis.

All we can do is tell the truth and wait for the critical mass of damaged people to be reached, the point at which enough people see the truth for themselves that things will change.

mary w maxwell

Replying to George Stevens: Yes, in 2011 in the US Supreme Court, the matter of the Vaccine Injury Court itself was decided. Brusewitz asked for the right to go to a normal court. She lost to Wyeth. In dissent, Jusice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg) said that the majority decision was even more than what Congress had asked for. She wrote:

“[Vaccine manufacturers] have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design….
In holding that [the Act] pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the
considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance
Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures
that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products.
[Because Sect. 22(b)(1) is] invoked by vaccine manufacturers as a defense to tort liability, it follows that the ‘even though’ clause requires a vaccine manufacturer in each civil action to demonstrate that its vaccine is free from manufacturing and labeling defects to fall within the liability exemption of Sect. 22(b)(1).
[The majority’s decision was based on] a policy preference. [It is better] to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries. The decision to bar all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers is one that Congress must make, not this Court.”

Betty Bona

I think I look at things a little differently. I don't see Kennedy as "wanting us to support him" so much as I see him offering his assistance. From what I've heard, he was doing just fine in his environmental work with plenty of recognition for his achievements. I'm not sure why he got involved, but I doubt it was just an ego kind of thing where he wants a following. I also don't have the same view on the numbers of people who are questioning the safety of vaccines and listen to us. In my world, I still see plenty of people who say there really isn't an autism epidemic. You know - that better diagnosis idea. And they love that Neurotribes book. There are even plenty of young people who think this way. The problem for me is that I actually do care about some of them even though they infuriate me with their complete allegiance to the vaccine program and the war on diseases. I want to save them and their children from what awaits them, but I am powerless to change their trajectory.

If someone like me set up a rally in my state to ban all mandates and end the vaccine court, it would hardly be noticed. We don't currently have mandates, and no one really cares anyway. They would just notice a few crazies shooting off their mouths. Heck, even with Kennedy, that's the kind of coverage the CDC rally got. I think your confidence in our ability to win over enough support to ban mandates is misplaced. We're fighting against too much money and power, and most people who haven't personally connected any injuries to vaccines just don't see it.

I see the government's collusion (both agencies and Congress) with the pharmaceutical industry as the evil that needs to be stopped first - or at least we should try to reel it in. I know the mandates in California are an infringement on our constitutional rights as is the vaccine court. But another constitutional right, the right to vote, is also infringed by the governmental collusion. I always hear Wakefield saying we should start being one-issue voters, but I have never seen anyone running for office that fulfills my one-issue even marginally. I can vote for person A who supports the pharmacy agenda or person B who also supports the pharmacy agenda both involving collusion and corruption. My vote means the pharmacy agenda will be supported because of the collusion and corruption. That's not a real vote. I may exaggerate the lack of good candidates a bit, but not much.

I think some issues like mandates, are possibly not as appropriate to bring our whole group together. Each state has it's own current laws, and it is a little hard to have a platform that is all about no mandates in my state where there currently aren't any. The argument is not ripe here. It probably will be in the future if nothing changes, but it is not ripe now. The corruption issue is ripe everywhere in the country because it involves federal agencies and Congress. The issue of the vaccine court is also ripe everywhere, but it is a bit too esoteric to be the main feature of our push. People think it is a legal issue they don't even want to try to understand. But everyone can understand corruption.

By joining Kennedy, you are not giving up your right to fight against mandates in the states where that is ripe, or to add any other item that your own group sees fit. As far as what Kennedy will do down the road, we're not dumb and I don't think he is either. We'll abandon him if he starts promoting certain vaccines or mandates. If he's smart, and I think he is, he'll drop out of the fight at that point. The hard core among us won't continue in a direction that favors vaccines or mandates. There's always some chance that relationships will need to be restructured in the future. That's just life.


It seems to me he's been giving his opinion very publicly over and over again.


Kennedy's audience is not people who already know about ALL the dangers of vaccines. The audience he seems to be aiming for are those who have no clue about even the most basic, huge, and best-backed angle. I don't see that he has any obligation to those who already know. I don't want him wasting his time talking to me! If he's hanging out talking to people like me, it just slows the message machine down. I'd prefer he spend his time and use his voice educating those that DON'T know. I'm glad that his is focused on teaching those ignorant of the matter, brings them under the umbrella.
I don't see at all that, as Laura says, "We have successfully made the case that vaccines contain dangerous, poisonous, and health-destroying ingredients, that vaccine failure is rampant, that vaccine injuries and deaths are real and increasingly common, and that vaccine-related fraud and corruption are obscene." We may have the science & knowledge, but California just voted against freedom, who considers that having made a successful case? New vaccines are being added to the CDC schedule. The gov't is tracking and intimidating on behalf of corporations. Scientific fraud has occurred at a high profile U.S. agency and was ignored by the media. Misinformation about the abilities and mechanics of the immune system is continually being circulated to decision makers. Ginger says the CDC has been allowed to just judge itself and is apparently so confident in it's own power and place that it doesn't have to answer to the government (posey).
True success will begin when, like GMOs, 90 % of the population will have been made aware of serious vaccine risks and believe that ALL parents should have the freedom to opt out if they choose. Successfully having made the case means California, Mississippi, and West Virginia wouldn't be where they are now.

If anyone is tired of hearing his mantra, it's because they are already aware of the thimerosal issue he discusses, and THAT type of person isn't the target audience, so that type of person needs to move in behind his wake and further educate the people he's spoken to about the next issue of concern in vaccines, and the next one and the next one and the next one, each presented by someone different, until a complete story has been built that can only lead, in the new audience member's mind, to the conclusion that freedom from medical intervention is a human right. Kennedy should be the gateway spokesperson, and others could do an whole lot following up and expanding the message after he breaks the ice.

Thank-you, JBH, for sharing your personal insight.


"The Federal Agencies and Pharma will never be honest on this issue for the most basic human reasons: 1) Giving up power, letting the little people make their own decisions; 2) Admitting they were wrong; 3) Giving up their obscene salaries; 4) Admitting they made monumental deadly mistakes."

5) Criminal prosecution.

cia parker

I don't either, Barry. I guess he's afraid of offending those who think differently, but he must have an opinion on this and, if he wants us to support him, he needs to come out and give it publicly.


Barry, what JB witnessed is not the least bit irrelevant.


Never said it was.

What I was referring to as irrelevant, was what JB said he was comfortable with paraphrasing on behalf of Mr. Kennedy. And I stand by that.

I really want to hear Mr. Kennedy answer these questions. Because I see no reason whatsoever why he can't.

cia parker


I agree that the two crucial needs don't exclude each other, and I'm happy that so many are contributing to the cause, each in his own way. It's great that Kennedy is talking about how dangerous vaccine mercury has always been, but I'll just let him do his own thing. That there's any mercury still in the flu vaccines is an anomaly that most people are completely unaware of. When they take notice, that loophole will be closed. I don't think they can get the trace amounts of mercury out: it's what's left over after the manufacturing process, the last little bit that couldn't be filtered out. Of course it's still dangerous, but people who want to get the vaccines that much will just have to take the chance. If he can't openly say he's against mandates, then he's not on my side. What if he were to say five years from now, well, it's all cleaned up to MY satisfaction, and I now have no hesitation in requiring all American children to get the following vaccines...?

And as for mandates, I don't think they would EVER be warranted. Not even if Ebola came to the US. Very few in Africa ever got even a trial Ebola vaccine, and eventually the epidemic burned itself out. Those who wanted such a vaccine would be free to get it, and if it worked, then they would be protected. Why should they care about those more worried about vaccine damage than Ebola? And if it didn't work, why would they care about forcing others to take an ineffective vaccine? Just to make them accept the same damage?


I think the public education thing doesn't require government or media support. Yes, it would be nice and the job would be done faster, but it's not necessary. Everyone is aware that thousands are irate about vaccines and autism, etc., even if they don't believe our experience is true. The life of their child is at stake. Every single one of those people could easily type the question into their computer and pick the likeliest sounding hits and read them. They can go to Amazon and look at the vaccine books there, read the reviews, buy a few books. If they choose to not see, it's because it's their religion, and we'll just have to wait for them to come around eventually when everyone else does. And honestly I'm not sure how much I care about those who just tune out so many thousands talking about what happened to their child at the doctor's office. But millions of people are receptive to our message. It's easier than it has been ever in history to get accurate information from the above sources, or at least sort through it to separate the wheat from the chaff. Many people spend months researching car seats, breast feeding vs. bottle, what stroller to buy. Researching vaccines is just the same thing. I think ever fewer people are willing to just obey their pediatrician and let him destroy their children's lives without a peep.

david m burd

Cia Parker, you say:

"But we're back to the two crucial needs: the education of the public as to the dangers of vaccines, and the freedom to refuse them if individual parents see fit."

As pertains to dangers, RFK, Jr: He has indeed performed heroically about Thimerosal (the ethyl mercury). I look forward to his becoming vocal about all the other toxins in vaccines, but it is just hope at this time, and don't expect it.

As pertains to "education of the public as to dangers of vaccines" - The mainstream media and Gov't Agencies will NEVER do this as they are all bought by huge monies indirectly funded by American taxpayers.

At this time, such as Safeminds, AoA, NVIC (the most heroic of all), Canary Party, VCC (Vaccine Choice Canada), etc., to never give in. And, for millions of us to not be shy about speaking up to friends and relatives, and to strangers we just happen to meet (what's to lose?).

The Federal Agencies and Pharma will never be honest on this issue for the most basic human reasons: 1) Giving up power, letting the little people make their own decisions; 2) Admitting they were wrong; 3) Giving up their obscene salaries; 4) Admitting they made monumental deadly mistakes.

It must be realized that only personal families rebelling, moving, and/or home schooling to avoid iatrogenic vaccines is going to work in the near-mid future. I have personally run across quite of few of such families just frequenting public parks with my very sociable dog. But, most of my personal relatives (far past child-rearing) think I'm a bit nuts. So be it.


Barry, what JB witnessed is not the least bit irrelevant.

Betty Bona

We are indeed talking about two crucial needs, but I don't believe one has to exclude the other. Maybe it is a bit like Adriana's post today in that it may not be time to marry the two, but I think a person could be a warrior in both fights. I personally want to stop as many vaccine injuries as possible as soon as possible. I have lots of great nieces and nephews coming along, and I'm seeing that their parents buy into the mantra of "safe and effective". I can't stop or change the way they think, and I feel sure their kids will be injured to some extent. I want to expose the corruption so that all these young people will start to question and do their own research. I certainly support and will fight for no mandates, parental choice and trashing the vaccine court. Those things are essential. But in my mind, the best way to prevent the most vaccine injuries as soon as possible is to disclose the corruption. I know, personally, I would take whatever civil disobedience steps necessary to avoid a mandatory vaccine. It would be a horrible hardship, but I think I would do it rather than vaccinate with all I know about the dangers. The big concern would be that the State might remove my child, but they might do that even without mandatory vaccines. In my mind, it is time to marry the two fights, but I can see that others don't agree.

I have had the argument many times with others about mandatory vaccines where they bring up Ebola. I tell them that I'm not sure I would take a vaccine for it - probably wouldn't. The argument always goes the same way. They want me to be mandated to take the vaccine so that I won't spread the disease. Currently it is a theoretical argument, but I'll bet I see it happen in my lifetime. What I'm saying here is that there are many who would not agree if you draw a black line and say no mandates ever like I would want.

Robert Kennedy is joining us to expose the corruption, fight against mandatory vaccines, at least while the corruption is still rampant, and restore our rights to a jury trial for recovery from vaccine injuries. Maybe that's different than the fight you want to participate in, but it is a fight I desperately want to continue. The way I see it, if you don't feel totally engaged in this battle (like some vaccine fighters might not feel totally engaged in the GMO battle) then don't participate. But please don't shoot it down as unworthy. I'll be happy to join your battle as well because I know it's worthy.

It's also a little like all the infighting that went on among all the different biomedical approaches. Sometimes it got out to the general public and gave the impression that we were all just desperate and crazy. Looking back, many different approaches had merit, and I don't see a giant number of children who were irreparably harmed by any particular approach other than maybe lost opportunity to do a different approach.

cia parker


I looked at the interview you linked, and continue to be concerned. Kennedy sounds as though he thinks the only problem is that parents don't trust the regulators, and that if that trust were restored, that then we'd be glad to get our children the vaccines they recommend. It doesn't sound as though he understands that vaccines are inherently dangerous and that many of us wouldn't get any more of them regardless of how they might clean up the regulatory process.

"The way vaccines are placed on the schedule is through a vaccine advisory committee. Unfortunately that committee is not stocked by independent scientists or regulators. . . . Ninety-seven percent of the people who sit on those committees have these same conflicts that Paul Offit had. So the problem is, . . .as a parent who's giving my children vaccines, I want to know those vaccines are on the schedule only because my children's health is the objective. And there's no other objective that the people who voted have in mind.

Kennedy said that parents don't vaccinate because they don't trust the regulators. The goal should be to "restore the integrity of the regulatory process," not to force parents to vaccinate"

cia parker

But we're back to the two crucial needs: the education of the public as to the dangers of vaccines, and the freedom to refuse them if individual parents see fit. Many parents in California have learned of the dangers and would like to refuse them, but will not be able to do so if they want to send their children to school or if they are just not able to homeschool. The freedom to choose is primary, although certainly adequate knowledge is necessary too.


So, since I heard him say it many times, I'm comfortable paraphrasing what he said:

Do you support vaccine mandates?

No, he thinks they are a terrible idea.

Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?

Yes, he emphatically does.

Bobby Kennedy told a story many times about how the 1986 law removed all the lawyers from the equation, leaving the parents to fend for themselves, so I'm pretty sure he'd like to see the law overturned.

JB Handley


What you're comfortable with is irrelevant.

I want to hear Mr. Kennedy answer these equations.

George stevens

Has anyone ever challenged the vaccine injury act law in the court system just curious?

Jenny Allan

@JB Handley:- "The Oregon vaccine mandate bill would never have died without his (Robert Kennedy Jnr's) efforts."

This alone should ensure the support of everyone who opposes mandary vaccinations in the US. If Robert Kennedy Jnr, succeeds in his crusade to have Mercury removed from vaccines -ALL VACCINES, then he will go down in history as a worldwide hero. Currently, there is a corporate sponsored 'push' to bring back mercury preservative in child vaccines in the Western World. Ignorant political leaders are very guilty of believing the lobbying skills of so called 'experts', paid by vaccine manufacturers to convince the public mercury is safe in vaccines. It isn't. Vaccine waste is classed as hazardous toxic waste.

Robert Kennedy Jnr is a hero to me.

JB Handley

FWIW, I personally watched Bobby Kennedy sail through the halls of the Oregon Legislature making his feelings about your questions abundantly clear to anyone who would listen, and the Oregon vaccine mandate bill would never have died without his efforts. So, since I heard him say it many times, I'm comfortable paraphrasing what he said:

Do you support vaccine mandates?

No, he thinks they are a terrible idea.

Do you support individual and parental rights to decline vaccination?

Yes, he emphatically does.

Bobby Kennedy told a story many times about how the 1986 law removed all the lawyers from the equation, leaving the parents to fend for themselves, so I'm pretty sure he'd like to see the law overturned.

JB Handley


I'm not picky. I just love Robert Kennedy for what he has done, which has been amazing. He doesn't get it right even when it comes to all the facts, but what he does get right like in his rally speech when he described the people who put vaccines on the schedule all being from Big Pharma it just hit home to hundred, if not thousands, of the unconverted. We need to turn this thing around and having Robert Kennedy on our side (no matter what his shortcomings) is a huge plus, plus. I think he sincerely cares about vaccine injured children. At the rally he was going around hugging them... and they were hugging him back. A lot of this movement or the dividing line between those of us who are in and those of us who are not comes to genuinely caring about the suffering of the vaccine injured and their mothers. Then there are those who don't care at all about either the vaccine injured or their mothers, and it's like looking across the Grand Canyon to the other side... you can't get from here to there. Robert Kennedy is here in solidarity with us . He may not actually have a child that is super injured, just sickly. I'm like that too... my daughter is out in the world. But I know what it is like anyway and so does he and that is what matters.


Sometimes it is a good idea to just write down thoughts such as this article, and put it in your "rant" file.

And here I thought Kennedy had done quite a lot!

So much for enemies with friends like us!


Matoaka to your point about rights being eroded away by government, the new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has just appointed a "Minister of Science." She is Kirsty Duncan a "medical geographer," who has had past dealings with GAVI and has written about and researched the Spanish flu, of course in order to develop a vaccine, since was "horrified" by "pandemics." WelI I hope she's equally horrified by children being downed left and right by autism, seizures, asthma etc. I hope she's really horrified that vaccine research is not credible in the slightest. I have a feeling this childless Kirsty Duncan is going to go the very predictable route of promoting policies that that are convenient for the pharmaceutical industry and that sycophantic bunch of "scientists." This game is getting old.

Anita donnelly

And the one and only protection is their parents. As an aside he feels this issue is also suffering from misogyny. No one takes mothers' observations seriously. He said the women he has met in this cause are outstanding in every way--and he was raised around some very outstanding women.

Anita donnelly

In this interview RFK Jr. is clearly against mandates and finds them in violation of the Nuremberg code:

Also I heard him speak in Sacramento. He said essentially (and possibly explicitly) that mandates take away the one and only protection left for children since the govt the Drs the law and the press have failed us. It was very strong language.

Betty Bona

I can also say that I will never blindly trust any person again when it comes to anything to do with the vaccine program. Even if someone answers all the questions right, I may not trust. But I don't want to be paralyzed by my inability to trust. Sure, ask all the questions you want, realizing that you may also never trust again. When you approach these issues in a way that says you are taking over the direction of the fight, I worry that my best opportunity to disclose the truth so far is being hijacked out from under me. To me, the truth behind the corruption leading to all the vaccine injuries is the crux. Having no mandates with the same schedule and all the new pipeline vaccines coming our way with no disclosure of corruption is a victory that won't have substance for most.

Gary Ogden

Thanks, Laura. Powerful and eloquent, as usual. It is the mandates that are our most important battle right now. I met two young mothers from Mississippi at the CDC protest, and later, at the rally. It is a lonely battle they fight. RFK was really good at the rally. I think he will come around, as he becomes more educated about other things in vaccines, such as aluminum nano particles. As he finished speaking I, and one of the videographers, saw a drone flying about twenty feet above the crowd. He filmed it. The bastards will stop at nothing to protect their stock dividends.

Betty Bona

For most of us, mandates had nothing to do with harming our children. The regular schedule of vaccines did that. We just didn't know we needed to question and dig deep about the safety and effectiveness of those vaccines on the schedule. We didn't realize because the truth was hidden from us. Mandates are horribly scary, but they had nothing to do with injuries in my household. Maybe that's why I don't see the mandate issue as the only way to fight. Or maybe it's because I don't live in California. I align more closely with the argument that "vaccines are not safe and effective and we have proof that has been fraudulently hidden for years by the CDC." Do we really need two separate groups to make those two arguments? Because I think we're much weaker when fragmented. I don't mind if some lead with the no mandates argument, especially those from California. Others can lead with the uncovered fraud argument. They're both valid.


I read the article, then started with the comments from the bottom up. People can't really be serious that we parents don't have the right to ask these questions of Kennedy, right? Or that AoA shouldn't have even posted the article to begin with??? Huh? Censorship of parental concerns about vaccine mandates at AoA? I don't think so!

Let's be clear: vaccines have blown many of our children's lives to smitherines. Mine included. I will ask any and all questions to any and all persons who speaks for our community. Blind trust in ANYONE is not something I will never do again. I LOVE that RFK Jr. is speaking up for us. I am doubly grateful because I know how much it has cost him. But God Almighty, I really need to know if will stand up for the most basic right of all: to say NO to vaccine mandates. Without that, we are toast. Getting mercury completely out would be great, but the bottom line is that vaccine mandates are destroying our children, and that is a huge question in many minds as to why he won't take a stand on that.

Anita donnelly

It took me a full 10 years after realizing that Mercury in vaccines had hurt my son to realize and accept that vaccines were basically useless . I wanted to believe that what had happened to my son had at least kept the herd safe. This stuff is painful. We are all on different parts of the path. We can all accept only so much especially if we are mourning something. God knows this man has been mourning something much of his life and he must be as devastated by the govt failure as these are his heros and friends as we are by the medical failure. I see why this can feel lukewarm and frustrating to you but how do you know it isn't where he is right now. And it's way more on the side of stopping stupid vaccination and opposing the lies than anyone else out there. Laura you rock but you had a longer time if you count hours devote to it--to get used to this--it was day in and day out. How long did it take you to realize all vaccines are bad ? What was your journey? Was it instant? If so your brain is wired differently than mine. That's good but it doesn't mean I was waffling when i used to say I was pro safe vaccine and anti additives . Which would have been offensive to you even though I spent many hours blogging and commenting and supporting and defending those who are against all vax too even before I was convinced they are fraudulent and unneeded. This is the difference in passion between someone who lost a relative to gun violence and someone who is passionately sad about a school shootings . The one who had it hit their family is more likely to be furiously anti gun. The other moght say guns are okay but need better controls. Would the second guy be letting the first guy down? Or is it valid to have less strong convictions depending on lived experience. ?


As much as I admire Mr. Kennedy for raising this issue, the fundamental problem is that he believes the government can create a solution to satisfy all parties instead of recognizing the core issue, which is that we, a constitutional republic, are watching our rights erode away little by little. I'm not convinced that he feels we know what's best for ourselves and our children.


With regards to the conventional wisdom that vaccines saved millions and are "safe and effective", a Quote from Mark Twain comes to mind:
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."


To RFK, Jr. and Rep. Posey: When you declare that you are strongly
pro-vaccine, would you please share with us your reason for being so. Is it that massive, non-existent body of HONEST research? Could it be that "everyone" says so? Could it be blind faith or wishful thinking? Conventional wisdom? I am dying to know. Please fill us in here. --brad

Laura Hayes

To David Taylor,

Hi David...I always look forward to reading your comments...thanks for joining the discussion here today :)

You wrote:

"Would you consider a little editing of your piece, making the challenge to everyone in the movement, not just RFK?"

I definitely tried to do that in this article: in the title ("I Respectfully Ask Mr. Kennedy, and All Americans, These Questions"); in the 2nd paragraph ("The questions I posed are not just for Mr. Kennedy, however. They are questions for every American."); and in a later paragraph, just before I provide my own answers to the 3 questions I posed ("Mr. Kennedy, AND everyone else involved in this fight to save our children and ourselves from this vaccine holocaust and current medical tyranny, needs to possess the wisdom and find the moral courage to boldly and confidently answer these 3 questions in the only way that will restore our God-given, fundamental-to-all-humans, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms.").

Perhaps you meant not using his name at all, and just putting my 3 questions out there to all. However, Mr. Kennedy continues to be a loud and frequently-heard voice across the country regarding vaccines, and I think it is important to hear directly from him what his answers are to these 3 questions.

As I wrote in an earlier comment, my goal is not to incite and invite division. It is to promote unity regarding the needed message.

You also wrote:

"But your message to him is something better discussed in a strategic meeting, rather than calling him out on a public forum."

I have had email communications with Mr. Kennedy going back a number of months now, including just last week; conference calls, phone calls, and text messages where others have acted as go-betweens also going back a number of months; and a phone conversation with him last week the day after I posted the 3 questions to him.

I do hope he will update and expand his public messaging to include that which I've mentioned in my article, given all that he has learned over the years. If not, that is his choice. However, it is my opinion that he undermines efforts to end this vaccine holocaust when he begins his speeches and interviews with the same 3-point mantra he continues to use, and when he won't specifically and publicly endorse the banning of all vaccine mandates, the full restoration of individual and parental rights regarding making medical decisions, including vaccination decisions, and the repealing of the 1986 Act.

Again, thanks for chiming in, David Taylor...glad you did :)

cia parker

The vaccine tests have to show efficacy before being licensed. It's hard to see how the DTaP and flu shots passed that hurdle, but I don't see how you could ban effective vaccines. Sure, they may disable or kill a lot of the recipients, but most people seem to think that's fine, as long as they prevent the targeted disease. How could you come to a consensus as to how many deaths were OK or too many if the vaccine is effective at preventing the disease? Would you get public support even if you proved to everyone's satisfaction that vaccines cause autism in nearly 3% of our children? And could you get them banned as long as there were ANY deaths from the diseases?

I think the way out is through education, letting/making the parents make the final informed decision. Neither choice is 100% guaranteed safe. But we have to ensure that all parents see what happens when the vaccines go wrong, and show them how common that is.

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

Please let us not break apart. I think people are slowly waking up, not just about Autism and vaccines, but about the corruption of our entire system. Personally, I did not detect any trace of disrespect in what Laura has written. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a hero to me on a par with Andrew Wakefield. He has risked everything. His brave legal challenge to Dr. Frank DeStephano, and the undeniable ridicule by the mainstream media to which he has repeatedly voluntarily exposed himself, to me, means he will be unlikely to be offended by this. Every person wants to protect their privacy, wants to protect their family, their children. I am completely willing to say the same as Laura said on the three questions.

cia parker


If you look at these recent polls, you'll see how many more parents now than just four years ago believe that vaccines cause autism. It's true that most people still support vaccine mandates, which is hard to understand, but these are such incongruent opinions I think it will change when they understand better. We're far from being just a fringe group.
"Quite right. A recent poll found that 33% of parents now believe that vaccines cause autism, up from 17% only three years ago. 20% believe that doctors know about the damage vaccines cause, but are lying about it from greed or fear. Another 36% believe that this may be true but they are not sure yet. Because more and more people are seeing
children react to vaccines with autism. The trend will only continue until most people stop vaxing."


P.S. I also agree with David Taylor - including that Laura's speech at that SB 277 hearing was excellent.


The more extreme we are (and we are lucky because the most extreme position on vaccines is also the correct one) the easiest it is for others to use as cover to ask more "moderate" questions of the paradigm.

If 2 per cent of people were opposed to the germ theory itself - let alone believe vaccines were safe and effective - then those who had questions about vaccine safety certainly would never be dismissed as fringe because they would seem to the average person to be more moderate.

Of course, as I say, the extreme position is in fact the correct one (including the lunacy of the germ theory) but what matters in the first instance is that we give cover to the many many people who have real concerns about vaccine safety but are petrified of saying anything because they know what happens to anybody who raises the issue in even the most gentle manner.

Christina Waldman

Robert Jackson's opening speech at Nuremberg, Day Two.

And here is the transcript.

The lessons of Nuremberg are too important to forget. We said the atrocities, the human rights violations that were allowed by the Nazis would never happen again. Medical experimentation is not supposed to happen without fully informed consent of all the risks and benefits, known and suspected. Yet we have vaccines that are still in trials and "safety studies" after being licensed, like the HPV vaccine. Infants and children are not capable of making full, informed consent. Nor are unborn children whose mothers are encouraged to be vaccinated today, as pregnant women never were before; it would be unethical to experiment on an unborn fetus, would it not? There are no adequate safety studies. Is maximizing profits really that much more important than "First, do no harm?"

Maurine Meleck

To introvert: In pyschological terms- it is called passive-aggressive ...

Maurine Meleck

Attorneys have pointed out that the Nurenberg Code does not legally apply to vaccine mandates.

Betty Bona

My understanding of corruption regarding GMO safety is my second biggest concern for our freedom, followed by anthropomorphic climate change. I think each of these corrupted issues gains power when the others are successfully spun. If we are able to clearly disclose all the corruption in the vaccine program, I'm hoping people will more readily see the corruption with GMO science.

Betty Bona

Your Stalin quote says it all for me. Using stealth and corruption, the people in power can take away our rights as citizens in a democracy - in that case the right to vote. I agree that the vaccine schedule is my very biggest eye opener when it comes to realizing our freedoms are being slowly and almost imperceptibly weakened, and losing our freedom is quite possibly the biggest loss we as a society will ever endure. And now I see the loss everywhere. I don't want to leave our country in this shape for our children, and although vaccine corruption is my biggest eye-opener, there are plenty of other areas of corruption that I am sick about as well. I guess I'm hoping to win this battle and thereby reduce corruption in other areas as well.

Freedom fighters throughout the ages have always worried about the true motivations of people who are seen as outsiders or partial converts who lend a hand or possibly a name to the cause. I've said before that I am not a historian, but I believe that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s decision to work with the Kennedy brothers caused a further divide in an already fractured movement for civil rights. Many people did not trust their motivations, and some began to question MLK, Jr's motivation as well. I'm not sure that this adds anything, except that I note that there is never a clear, one and only, path to the goal for freedom fighters.

My goal in this fight is to end the governmental collusion and complacency in perpetuating the lies of Big Pharma. Included in that, of course, is an end to mandates, the vaccine court, the CDC as it currently stands, and full education of the media, politicians, scientists, doctors, and everyday citizens. I personally believe exposing the corruption in all it's nastiness is the best way to attain that goal and rescue our freedom, but I understand if others disagree. I just don't want to see the movement splintered so that I have to choose a side. Surely we are far less powerful as a fragmented group. If we manage to fully expose the corruption, I see the on-the-street moms and dads gaining a great deal of power. If our goals diverge at that point, at least we will be stronger, and hopefully strong enough to continue fighting for our freedom alone.


I am very much against GMOs. Numerous European countries banned them entirely in the past few weeks, and the American press didn't even report on it. Now the last chance for labeling is in the Senate. If it is defeated, even the states who have voted for labeling will not be able to implement it (Call your senators.). At this point, I am delighted and frankly astounded if a politician speaks out in favor of labeling our food, letting us know that a chemical company has been given the right to change the DNA of the food we eat. How does this relate to vaccines? I guess living life has lowered my expectations, but I feel extremely grateful to RFKjr for speaking out. I understand that people want more, the whole enchilada, but politically, I feel at this moment it is a miracle to hear anyone willing to say what RFKjr has said. That said, I think Laura Hayes rocks and she should make her point as well, in her speeches. I just don't think that everyone has to have exactly that position to be in the club. When I talk to a 28 year old friend about vaccinations, I can see she turns off if it goes too far out of her comfort zone. That counts too. Let's have a big tent, not a perfect one.


I realized that although I stress this issue is inherently about freedom of choice, what also needs to be emphasized is the education of the masses regarding TRUE benefits/risks when it comes to vaccination. As we all know, this discussion has, for the most part, been shut down by our captured agencies/MSM via big pharma.

Education of the masses as it pertains to issues with vaccines AND thus, the freedom of choice as it pertains to vaccination, is what I am most concerned about.

(I would love to see more of the type of debate Ginger Taylor had with various members in her community, which if memory serves, was posted at this site not that long ago. It was wonderful to see this type debate in a public venue. I've never, ever seen anything come close to that, out here in CA.)


"Can we put on hold the debate about whether vaccines are good or bad and just be on the same page about the freedom to decide how we choose to maintain our own health?"

That's an interesting question. Our Food and Drug Administration is supposed to make sure that drugs are reasonably safe and effective and any drugs that don't pass those basic tests are not even supposed to be offered. This is, of course, to protect the public from the peddling of false promises and harmful substances dressed up as preventative, palliative or curative medicine.

The thing with vaccines, is that even though we know better, we still compromise and demand only to be given a choice - which right now is asking a lot. But really, should the FDA allow these unproven, fraudulently tested concoctions to be used on anyone? We know better, so we would say no. But what about the less educated or the less intellectually able? Shouldn't they be protected? I think definitely, yes.

So I would say that we can't put the question of vaccine safety and efficacy aside, because that is the central issue. There should never be mandates, and until the science and regulatory agencies are cleaned up and until real science conducted by unconflicted truly independent scientists proves their worth and safety, these drugs should be outlawed.

Betty Bona

We need to understand the viewpoint of those typical citizens who think we are not only crazy, but dangerous. I run into them all the time, and I have not changed very many minds so far. If we don't manage to educate more people so that they truly understand the dangers of vaccines, we will continue to be a fringe group with limited power. Even if we win a victory here or there against a mandate, that won't stop the powers from regrouping and attempting elsewhere or again where the mandate formerly stood. I don't know, maybe they buy more politicians, and even courts aren't completely uncorruptible. These mandate victories we are seeing in some states are wonderful, but they don't stop the vaccine injuries caused by the current non-mandated schedule. our opponents really do have all the power, the money, the politicians, doctors, the media, the science and the support of the majority of the citizens - what don't they have? And they are doing a pretty good job keeping what they have. What they are not is corruption free. They do not have the truth on their side. If we truly want to stop mandates and abolish the vaccine court, we need more of something. Our opponent's only weak point is the truth, so that seems a valid place to start to generate more of some other things like politicians, the media, other citizens, and eventually scientists and doctors. Certainly we need to fight every mandate bill that comes along, but it's a little like whack a mole. They keep popping up, and I don't see us getting any stronger by demanding anything specific of anyone who joins our fight. We need to change the dynamics of power, and I think that requires exposure of the corruption. I just hope it's not too late for that to be effective.


Kathy your family's heartbreaking experience is relevant to weighing the risks and benefits of vaccines, and to the compelling reasons why we should not have mandates, but not to the question of whether we should malign Bobby Kennedy after he spent months traveling around the country speaking out against mandates, for personal choice, and for recognition of the CDC Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, and Dr. Brian Hooker's work exposing vaccine research fraud. He also wrote a comprehensive book about mercury in vaccines, including about an autism-vaccine link. Mercury is one very important aspect of vaccines.

Someone asked why lawsuits aren't happening. From what I'm hearing, people are preparing for lawsuits but they can't actually occur until the mandates go into effect and children are either banned from school or forced to vaccinate.


"...What I would like to say, UNEQUIVOCALLY, is that I agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD that Laura Hayes writes! This is an American crisis, a world-wide crisis and it needs to be met head-on, RIGHT NOW. Those of us 60 and over can say with great certainty that this is NOT the country or the medical community we grew up with. I will lay down my life, if necessary, for this cause. Really."


I've not even read this entire comment yet, but was riveted to the last paragraph; tears all over the place. I've stated repeatedly throughout my comments that this is NOT about vaccines. This is not an anti-vaccine issue, it's not a pro vaccine issue; IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM.

I would give my life for this cause, as well. REALLY. I cannot begin to explain just how important this one issue is, not just for the United States, but for the global masses.

Literally, the human species is at RISK here. The true message which should be reverberating long and wide is being diluted with too many other messages.

Here is a quote I just found and feel it's appropriate to place it here:

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

- Joseph Stalin

Gary Huber

Laura- Fantastic post! Someone else took my comment, which was simply amen,so I'll say more. This inspires me as a beginner activist to do more and give more. I know from reading this site there are some conflicting opinions among the very diverse people here. Some of the things I read here make me cringe a little, but I guess that is inevitable for an issue which cuts across all political/social/philosophical boundaries. I agree with Laura 100%! Thank you AoA for posting this despite a few disagreements.

cia parker

But the foundation for informed consent has to be the ability to consent or refuse. Mandates take away even the ability to refuse vaccines. And yes, it is a big problem that most parents are not willing to even spend five minutes googling the question of vaccine safety. But there would be no point in even trying to educate them if they have no freedom of choice to begin with. And we ARE reaching growing numbers of people, we've gone from less than one percent believing that vaccines cause autism to 40% of parents believing it in only ten years. And it takes time to change a paradigm this strong and all-encompassing.

While I would like to have a law mandating that all parents read material on vaccine damage (OK, and also on the risks of the VPDs and the effectiveness of the vaccines too) prepared by a vaccine-damaged authority, it's going to be a while before that happens.

But I agree with Laura and Bob that we HAVE to know where RFK stands on mandates and whether he accepts that the dangers of vaccines go way beyond mercury (horrifying though that damage is, I had a vaccine mercury attack last night (aka MS) involving dizziness, staggering with no balance when I tried to walk, and vomiting). Since we HAVE to know where he stands on these questions, then we're going to have to ask him specifically. I respect him and am grateful to the spotlight on mercury in vaccines which he has brought, but I have to know how well-informed he is on the whole issue. I can't support someone who would agree to mandates, believing that mercury is the only problem with vaccines. If he doesn't answer our questions, vital though they are, then he doesn't deserve our support.

Kathy Sincere

I have posted on AoA before as a mother of four vaccine-injured children. Here is my testimony before the Colorado Legislature when we were fighting HB1288 in 2014:





I am wondering if ANYONE posting on this site can match the pain and frustration that my husband and I have endured. If there is, I would like to hear from you.

What I would like to say, UNEQUIVOCALLY, is that I agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD that Laura Hayes writes! This is an American crisis, a world-wide crisis and it needs to be met head-on, RIGHT NOW. Those of us 60 and over can say with great certainty that this is NOT the country or the medical community we grew up with. I will lay down my life, if necessary, for this cause. Really.

Cynthia Cournoyer

The irony is that if we never had the Injury Act, we would never be so divided. Vaccine manufacturers would have folded their tents long ago, due to all the law suits. The free market would have worked for the good of all. There would not be the epidemic of chronic illness that followed exactly the explosion of new vaccines. Will there ever be an end to number of vaccines and therefore the mandates to follow the schedule? If we lose our right to pick and choose, we will lose our very vitality as a species. Can we put on hold the debate about whether vaccines are good or bad and just be on the same page about the freedom to decide how we choose to maintain our own health?


Not to be disrespectful, but I think many are a “bit confused” by RJK’s Jr. "fiercely pro vaccine” stance.

None of the vaccines seem to work until three to four doses are given…. and the damn flu shot is marketed as working almost no matter what on one dose. They claim to still provide a “milder case of the flu” even if they miss the virus altogether.. which is impossible to prove.

Laura, those would be good questions for the presidential debates. I think we know how Hillary stands …

I would add one more question.. Should the prostitute/ hep b vaccine / at the day of birth be eliminated from the CDC schedule ?

John Stone


Above all we need to end corruption - as I pointed out below in the UK the same corruption is differently organised. Corrupt science is deadly science, and political repression is political repression. Everyone has to think about how we make the message more effective, but I am grateful to RFKjr, almost alone of the political class, for sticking his neck out.

Dan Olmsted

Laura, we welcome a range of opinions and analysis and this certainly falls well into that framework. As you know, you and I disagree on aspects of the vaccine issue, but anyone who thinks that merely asking questions is some kind of problem really doesn't understand our mission. Someone once said, There are no wrong questions, just wrong answers.*

*President Kennedy

Laura Hayes

I knew this article would stimulate some heated discussion, but that is okay with me, given what's at stake...the future of our children, ourselves, and the human race.

We MUST change the rhetoric being used. The message must be ban vaccine mandates and fully restore individual and parental rights with regard to medical decision making, which of course also includes repealing the 1986 Act. Not doing so will not lead to the victory we desperately need, and we need that victory now.

My goal is not to incite or invite division. It is to promote unity over the needed message.



THANK you from the bottom of my heart for responding in kind to Laura's thoughtful and articulate message.

And thanks, as well, for the video link; will definitely be viewing it.


"...But when lives, our country, and the future of our species is literally at stake, we can't stand by and allow mixed messages that can ultimately lead in the wrong direction. We just can't. Shame on us if we stand by silently while any parent is given the advice, no matter how well meaning, to go ahead and get their kids vaccinated as long as the vaccines don't contain thimerosal..."


Nothing else needs to be said...


When you suffer and witness a loss such as what Laura has experienced, it is impossible to tolerate mixed messages that have the potential to lead someone into going down that same treacherous path. Laura has a very clear vision and sense of purpose and she does not waver. RFK Jr also has been a powerful force and done a tremendous amount of good.

But when lives, our country, and the future of our species is literally at stake, we can't stand by and allow mixed messages that can ultimately lead in the wrong direction. We just can't. Shame on us if we stand by silently while any parent is given the advice, no matter how well meaning, to go ahead and get their kids vaccinated as long as the vaccines don't contain thimerosal.

I was listening to a youtube talk that Dr. Wakefield gave recently in Utah. In the post talk Q&A, when asked what he knows about cancer being caused by vaccines, he said that cancer was not his area of specialty. This is a good example of how to handle the enormity and complexity of this issue. If you don't know the answer, don't give one. Dr. Wakefield also said that he is provaccine, but he also qualified that statement by adding that given the current state of the science he doesn't believe that any vaccine on the CDC schedule is safe.

Vaccines and public health policy are just too important to get wrong. No compromise can be accepted. There's too much at stake.

I also think that people are listening. I think there are cracks in the main stream media, for one. It never made sense that the industry that is charged with protecting democracy by keeping the public informed would so willingly hand the country to Pharma. There has to be an army of Sharyl's and Ben's itching to get around the censors, and there has to be trouble for Pharma at the top. All of journalism cannot be that stupid and sociopathic. Viewers are leaving the MSM in droves, not listening to the talking heads and getting their news from alternative sources. This is likely waking up the MSM, giving them the message that if they continue to sell out, they will very soon be talking only to themselves. I do think that all the many warriors out in force on the internet and in communities across this country and around the world are making a huge difference. Americans know they are being lied to. The truth is getting out.

Dr. Wakefield - excellent presentation:


I agree, Laura, that we need to unite against vaccine mandates and for personal choice. So I don't understand why you are maligning someone who has worked so hard against vaccine mandates --speaking to state legislatures in every state where mandates were pending -- speaking not only about thimerosal but about the corruption throughout the vaccine system such that parents are the only barrier between our children and "rapacious" pharma companies.

Why would you demand that he say vaccines have never save lives, if our goal is to unite people with diverse opinions around the principles of pro-choice and anti-mandates? And why would you say you were never pro-vaccine when you did vaccinate your children? Even if that was not a considered choice, you were influenced by the doctors etc. to make a passively pro-vax choice.

I agree with Lisa, Introvert, Jenny, Know thy Enemy, Jill, Linda, and Jersey Guy.

Jeannette Bishop

Obviously Mr. Kennedy is more against mandates than the self-proclaimed global rulers who have no intention of taking their own mandated brews IMO, and while I hope he's as much against them as me, and many here, I don't see him as claiming to represent me, ... and for reasons hard to articulate and somewhat weird to have to live with, I don't even want to see him answer these questions under current circumstances, but of course he is perfectly free to do so (or my little world)...

Betty Bona

"We have exposed the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines, in addition to the lack of need for them."

Laura, I disagree that we have yet accomplished your above statement. I agree that mandates should be fought without any hesitation. It's all layers of the same thing. First they make us get a doctor's signature for our personal exemption, then they mandate certain vaccines for children, then they mandate certain vaccines for adults, then they mandate all vaccines for everyone. They do this in their fictionally created "vaccines are safe and effective" world. It's like a well thought out plan for profit or whatever being slowly foisted on unknowing citizens taking away our freedoms in such a way that many don't notice and simply accept that it's for our own good. They assume that our government, Pharma, scientists, and doctors are benevolent. We may have demonstrated to our own satisfaction the dangers of vaccines, but the majority of the citizens still believe at least generally in the benevolence of our system. We need people demanding our constitutional rights, but we also need people demanding exposure of corruption. If we only manage to gain our rights to no mandates, only the well-informed among us who understand the science and the corruption will be benefited, and the general population will continue to vaccinate. If we manage to expose the corruption in a way that the average person will see and be horrified by, then we have a better chance of preventing more vaccine injuries among children and adults and we will get the populace behind a movement to kill all vaccine mandates.


Now, all of this being said, I might also add that immediately after I finished reading Kennedy's book on Thimerosal (which I read cover-to-cover in two days -- couldn't put it down!), I went straight to my computer and sent him an email 1) to thank him for writing the book; and 2) to ask him what we could do together, he as a lawyer, and the rest of us as concerned citizens and parents, to stop the vaccine mandates. Specifically, I asked whether it would be possible to begin filing injunctions in courts to halt mandates of the individual vaccines, which would allow the sort of "discovery" that families don't get in vaccine court. That is, it would allow us to bring the available evidence to a real judge and force him/her to rule on whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that any one of the mandated vaccines is actually so safe that parents can be legally required to give them to their children. Quite honestly, I am not sure why this approach is not yet being pursued. I think we can all agree that a real court of law is our best(maybe our only) hope at this point. Filing injunctions is the only way to get this issue into a real court. I wonder, if for example, the parents of African-American boys were brought together to file injunctions against the MMR mandate in California, what would be the judge's reaction to the Thompson files? At the very least, he/she would be forced to admit them into evidence. That might be the only way to get them a public airing.

Sophie Scholl

agreeing with Laura Hayes 100%

I want to hear it from the mouths of EVERYONE who purports to represent us .
What are their exact views on these simple questions ?
I want it recorded and documented .
Fed up with this double dealing ambiguity .


Seems to me that Robert Kennedy likely knows best how to strategically navigate through the challenging political waters of this issue...His reasoned voice and standing within the environmental field, coupled with his expertise in mercury pollution, will gain our movement some mainstream credibility. He can only do so much, a broad-based grassroots movement requires many diverse voices merging together.


Good God, RFK Jr. has worked tirelessly for our cause, and his only reward has been a storm of personal vilification in the media. Shouldn't we be thanking him rather than badgering him? Unfortunately, in every protest movement there are those who demand 100 percent ideological purity of everyone, but we can only win if we build alliances with people who are only 90 or 80 or even 50 percent with us. Obviously, RFK Jr. has to say he's "fiercely pro-vaccine" because he if he doesn't, he will be crucified as an "anti-vaxxer". Repealing the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act is politically impossible at the present time, and many readers of AoA do not *completely* reject vaccination. But if we frame the issue as one of informed consent, then we can win broad public support and win battles -- as indeed we did win in Oregon, Oklahoma, and many other states. Given that we have to fight the media, the medical establishment, the public health establishment, and the Gates Foundation, wouldn't it make sense to stop fighting our friends?

Laura Hayes


I just wanted to clarify that my main thesis goes above and beyond informed consent. My main point is that we must urgently fight for the full restoration of individual and parental rights, specifically with regard to vaccination decisions. We must restore the ability of individuals and parents to decline one, some, or all vaccines for oneself or one's child without any government interference, cost, coercion, or penalty.

Vaccine mandates in and of themselves are a violation of rights and freedoms. Additionally, we should not have to sign an exemption, where they are even still allowable, which often involves cost, time, and harassment, and which aren't always accepted as valid, in order to decline a medical procedure.

It is a violation of many rights and freedoms to be living under vaccine mandates, most especially in what is supposed to be a "free" country. Vaccine mandates are an egregious violation of: our God-given rights to bodily integrity and directing the upbringing of our children, the most basic fundamental human right of bodily integrity, the U.S. Constitution on many fronts, and the Nuremberg Code and other international codes of ethics to which the U.S. has agreed.

Vaccine mandates are THE problem, as is having to sign and provide an exemption of any sort. The proper providing and receiving of informed consent by the doctor, nurse, or pharmacist is also essential. Unfortunately, we all know that informed consent is rarely provided or received prior to vaccinations. Informed consent should happen with or without mandates. But having informed consent without the option to say "no thank you" and decline is virtually useless. What's the point if vaccines are going to be forced on you or your child anyway? I contend that it is having mandates in the first place that is the biggest problem which we must seek to end.

This vaccine holocaust against our children, and now expanding to all of us, could not be more urgent. Rhetoric must change. We have exposed the dangers and inefficacies of vaccines, in addition to the lack of need for them. Now we must end the mandates, forever. Without our unfettered and unrestricted right to say no, we and our children will be poisoned into chronic illness, permanent disability, and premature death.

I, for one, am sick to death of daily hearing about another infant, child, or adult that has experienced vaccine-induced injuries or death. This vaccine madness must be stopped immediately, and that CAN'T happen until vaccine mandates have been abolished and individual and parental rights have been fully restored. Such truths need to be unabashedly stated, especially by those who have been in this battle for years now, and who know that the only way to protect oneself and one's child from vaccine harm is to have the unfettered and unrestricted ability to say "no thank you".

David Taylor

At the end of his address at October's CDC protest rally, as he was begging for "just three more minutes," RFK said something that should have been the lead story for every news outlet in America: [paraphrasing]

"I am accusing you, Dr. Frank DeStefano, of scientific fraud. You are a liar and a criminal. You belong in jail. And if what I'm saying is not true, you should sue me for slander right now. If someone said those things about me, I would immediately sue them."

Laura, I don't think a public figure could climb out much further on a limb for a cause than that.

This movement is a complex strategic game with many players. I bet RFK appreciates your advice. We know he admires you and credits you as someone who helped bring him into this cause. But your message to him is something better discussed in a strategic meeting, rather than calling him out on a public forum.

Would you consider a little editing of your piece, making the challenge to everyone in the movement, not just RFK?

You are a powerful thinker and speaker. Your address at the SB277 rally was historic. My answers to the three questions emphatically echo yours.


I have to agree with Lisa. The best thing to come from the above information is "a divided house cannot stand." Why use your energy and time to pick on Mr. Kennedy. His perspective is different from yours and mine. We all have our own angle. We must respect each other's angle. You may not necessarily agree with everything Mr. Kennedy says, but he is saying what he believes. I also agree that no one is listening anyway. My hope is that the Nation of Islam will finally be the sledgehammer that breaks through the wall of disinformation. Finding someone to subpoena Mr. Thompson is going to be very difficult. Unity and respect should be our bywords. Pharma is very, very good at misdirection. Don't fall into that trap. I read the Age of Autism site every morning with my hot cup of tea. This article was very disappointing. We are better than this.

Betty Bona

I am fighting for exposure of the corruption and freedom from the corruption first and foremost. As John indicates, freedom from mandates means very little to the populace at large if we continue with the same corruption. I try to tell some of my favorite people that I know don't have the resources to read and understand the science about the dangers of vaccinating, but even when they believe me at the time, they still vaccinate because their doctor told them to. They aren't mandated to vaccinate. If we don't stop doctors from telling people to vaccinate, we have made very little progress. I don't think that will happen until we expose the corruption in a dramatic way that actually spurs change. I am afraid of the mandates, but also view them as an opportunity to expose the corruption in court. But as I said, mandates or not, the general population will continue getting vaccinated because they follow their doctors' orders.

Know thy enemy

In my opinion the only way things are going to change is when the number of mosquitoes plaguing the powers that be exceeds their ability to swat.

Laura and RFK Jr are both busy and effective mosquitoes. Laura is a fantastic spokesperson for personal rights. Kennedy is doing a great job advocating about the lunacy and lies surrounding the use of thimerosal in vaccines, as well as in getting the word out about the Thompson admissions.

Both mosquitos will be much more effective if they buzz around and sting the powers that be, rather than each other.

The interchanges between Tim Bolen and others here (and elsewhere) fit in the same box. Why do folks waste so much time and energy attacking each other? All of you are really on the same side, just looking at things from different angles.

Different arguments and viewpoints will resonate with different people for different reasons and multiple arguments are far, far harder for the PTB to refute or counter than a single meme.

John Stone


You are perfectly right about informed consent if there is an effective state monopoly on information. In the UK we do not have mandates and we still probably have above 90% compliance for infant vaccines. Any debate about this is completely excluded from the mainstream. MSM no longer report cautious opinion, or offer space to comment in blogs: we have wall to wall stupidity. Also, demonstrating how wonderfully safe the program is there has not been a single vaccine damage payment in five years (despite hundreds of millions of products distributed during the period). And any expert opinion offered on the subject would have to come from abroad, because any doctor in this country offering such evidence would almost certainly be hauled before the General Medical Council.

Having said which I am not sure I would opt for the US situation, but at least you know - beyond dotting the Is and crossing the Ts - what you are fighting for.


Wouldn't it be easier for you to just call and ask him? Might bring you the peace of mind you are seeking.

Not sure if this is current, but I got it off the internet.
Professor Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Phone: (914) 422-4343
Fax: (914) 422-4437

I might use it to tell him I support him.

Nobody here disagrees with the human rights aspect and the need for complete freedom. But you don't always have to cut your feet off when you want to use your hands.

What human rights groups or civil rights organizations, and their constitutional attorneys have you educated that are now on board with the issue, who will be planning on issuing public statements on their facebook pages and to those on their list serves, that we can support? Or which ones have you started with - we can all start writing to them to support your efforts in communicating with them so that they know it is an important issue.


I would like to add that I disagree fundamentally with Laura's main thesis: That the vaccine issue boils down to nothing more important than informed consent. While I strongly support informed consent, I also know that even with informed consent, the vast majority of parents are just going to do whatever their child's doctor tells them to do. Therefore, I, as an elementary teacher, am going to still be getting up each day to face a classroom full of chronically sick and disabled children who can't learn. This problem is not going to be resolved with informed consent. Most parents either can't afford to spend, or are intellectually not capable of spending, the hundreds of hours reading and researching vaccines that are necessary to truly be informed of the risks vs benefits.

Bob Moffitt

@ introvert

" I 100% agree with Lisa here. Kennedy has staked his entire reputation on this issue, travels around the country fighting vaccine mandates on his own dime, and we are wasting our time insulting his efforts and questioning his motives?

If .. as you say .. RFK "travels around the country fighting vaccine mandates" .. why do you so harshly criticize anyone who dares asks him to "clarify" his "pro-vaccine" comments as .. "insulting"?

If RFK does not want to "clarify" his position .. so be it .. but ... asking him to consider doing so .is a far cry from "insulting" him.


My 12 year old daughter has a habit of starting her sentences with "No offense, but..." when what she says is offensive. Adding "respectfully" to a question doesn't make it respectful when it is clearly not. I 100% agree with Lisa here. Kennedy has staked his entire reputation on this issue, travels around the country fighting vaccine mandates on his own dime, and we are wasting our time insulting his efforts and questioning his motives? It is counter-productive in the extreme. A pharma troll would be delighted to be responsible for publishing this article on AofA.

Bob Moffitt

Laura .. I agree that the courageous RFK .. should have absolutely no problem .. honestly answering .. the three questions you asked .. indeed .. you even gave him a great suggestion on how to withdraw from his "once proud pro-vaccine" advocacy:

"... I can no longer say that I am fiercely pro-vaccine...I can no longer say that if I had a child born today I would vaccinate him or her according to the CDC-recommended schedule...and I can no longer state with any confidence that vaccines have saved millions of lives."

@ Lisa

Sorry that you strongly disagree with Laura's questions .. believing they are "disrespectful" .. but .. I think the question whether or not RFK would .. TODAY .. "vaccinate his children according to the CDC-recommended schedule" is quite reasonable .. surely a question that RFK should WANT to answer .. and .. not having any problem doing so.

In any event .. I believe I have as much respect for RFK as anyone who comments on AoA .. and .. in my humble opinion .. asking RFK to clarify his message is in no way meant to be disrespectful or dismissive of all he has done .. as you have so eloquently stated.



I just finished reading Kennedy's book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. Did you read it? I'm thinking not, because the tone of your post sounds very disrespectful, and quite frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that Age of Autism would even allow it to be posted.

It is very clear from Kennedy's book that he has poured a great deal of his own time and sweat into the issue of vaccine safety. It is also clear that he has paid a very heavy price, in the form of being marginalized and vilified by the pro-vaccine lobby and nearly every media outlet in America. Clearly, he did not have to wade into this issue at all. He does not have vaccine-injured children himself. He is an environmental lawyer, not a doctor. I have the utmost respect for him. He has put his reputation on the line for all of us.

As far as I am concerned, he does not have to answer your questions. None of the powers that be are listening to him anyway, anymore than they are listening to you and me. He has chosen to try to elucidate that science around the dangers of thimerosal. If he can succeed in educating the public about that one single issue, that will be more than the rest of us can hope to achieve in our lifetimes.

I'm disappointed in Age of Autism right now, for the first time since I began coming to this site, many years ago.

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.)