Mark Shaw stated:

"Free choice also demands that anybody who makes such a choice be held personally responsible for the outcome. In my mind that means that insurance companies should be able to NOT cover any medical expenses incurred because the patient declined a simple, cost effective vaccine."

Well, Mark, if you believe that then you should also agree that insurance companies should not cover any expenses associated with vaccine damage, because the parents should be held personally responsible for that outcome of their free choice to vaccinate.

And guess what: the costs produced by vaccine damage DWARF the medical costs that might be generated by natural measles. And these costs come through not just via health insurance premiums, but through federal, state, and local taxation (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, special education budgets, etc.)

Do you agree?

I am a libertarian and I actually believe that this is the way it should work. For those of us who want health insurance, we should be able to form pools with others who are like-minded in terms of how to prevent and treat disease. We should not be forced into collectives with others who do not share our values.

That said, I do believe that those who have already been injured by vaccines should be indemnified by the government, because the government's coercive and fraudulent vaccine program has ultimately caused this harm.

Mark, our attitude is not so surprising when you consider that, for many of us, having measles was part of growing up. We were not in the least afraid of it and, of course, were kept home for the appropriate time. It also left us with lifelong immunity and strengthened immune systems. My generation had never heard the word autism. We knew of no-one with allergies. The acronym 'SIDs' had not been invented because babies rarely died and, when they did, the cause was known because they had been ill before they died.

Many of us on this site have families whose lives have changed after reaction to a vaccine (often 'who knows which' because they are given in multiples and sometimes as many as 8 shots at a time). Many of those reactions have turned into lifelong disabilities changing the life of that family forever.

Perhaps this explanation may go a little way to explaining our attitude to a vaccine schedule that recommends up to 50 shots before school age.

I am amazed at the number of people who seem to think that getting a disease like measels is no big deal; and therefore not worth a perceived risk of taking a vaccine to prevent it. For those who contract measels there are a number of scary complications like, death, loss of vision or hearing, encephalitis, diminished cognitive ability, SSPE.

Not to mention that any responsible person who gets measels needs to have themselves and anybody they have been in contact with...quarantined for at least 21 days to prevent the spread of the disease to somebody else. The cost of that quarantine is their responsibility. Not their employer, the medical community, or any insurance company.

Free choice also demands that anybody who makes such a choice be held personally responsible for the outcome. In my mind that means that insurance companies should be able to NOT cover any medical expenses incurred because the patient declined a simple, cost effective vaccine. Also, the medical costs caused to another person should be covered by the person making their free "choice." This liability can be easily defined if you are the first person to ever make contact with someone who later develops the disease.

Sadly, I think all these "free choice" people out there are not willing to sign up to cover the complete damages they may cause by their choice.

Cia,

I don’t trust pro-vax efficacy statistics because pro-vaxxers lie. But let’s assume some vaccines have actually decreased disease and death rates as claimed. If decreased disease and death rates were the only consequence of the vaccines in question, one might be able to justify the use of the vaccines. Such reductionist thinking might have been appropriate a century ago, but not today. There are countless known and unknown additional consequences associated with each vaccine and with each combination of vaccines, consequences starting with altered and damaged DNA to altered and damaged ecosystems. Therefore, a measure of efficacy must be more than increased antibody titers or more than decreased incidence of disease.

Vaccine architects know full well that vaccines make healthy people sick and sick people sicker, and kill a certain number of people. But hey, if they don’t get Hib Meningitis then the vaccine is effective, right? Vaccinating (injuring) 300,000 people and killing half a dozen people to prevent one person from dying from one vaccine preventable disease may meet the industry’s definition of efficacy, but for the vaccine informed community such statistical shenanigans only meets the definition of sociopathy.

..."We have been led to believe by the allopathic medical community and big pharma that our bodies are completely incapable of surviving any stage of life without vaccines, surgery and pharma drugs. Younger generations now believe that the side-effects of all of this intervention are completely normal. It is time to stop acting as though vaccines were ever a smart idea and educate the public about the true drivers of health: clean food, clean water, clean air and good sanitation."

YES. Triple that...

This should be the mantra of and repeated as often as is necessary, most especially to the younger generation who have been so completely fear mongered into a scandalous and barbaric form of practice. As Sherri T. has so aptly stated on numerous occasions, "Good health has never, ever come from a needle."

..."But, again, they can still save lives, even though they are in many ways imperfect, often dangerous themselves. But still, most people get vaccines, even many vaccines, and never look back (they may get asthma or allergies from the vaccines, and usually never realize it, but very few get tetanus or meningitis, etc.). ..."

Save lives, or suppress? And at what cost?

It is perhaps quite possible for completely safe vaccines to eventually be in the pipeline, but ONLY if it is acknowledged that the product currently on the market is completely defective and should never, ever be put into a human body (or animal for that matter).

We are all going to die at some point in time. Dying is simply a part of living/life. You never, ever put anything defective or toxic into an immune system and expect for that defective product to work some sort of magic. So perhaps rather than injecting a toxic brew of ingredients into an immune system, the better alternative would be to find a cure and/or provide treatments which are life saving, rather than using a vaccine.

In any society, it should never, ever be an acceptable alternative to offer a solution to disease (via fear mongering) that which may harm or kill.

That should never be a choice - for anyone. The ONLY acceptable choice would be something which is completely safe, but still an OPTION for the individual.

Brett,

Mike Belkin used much the same argument when he coined the term "refusers" as a mark of pride for those who refused vaccines, and started a great band of that name. I agree that the term "antivaxxer" is an honorable one for those who wish to refuse vaccines.

Every vaccine is dangerous, and probably each one given to anyone does some degree of damage, although it may be that no one will ever make the connection if it is slight or delayed in its manifestation. Certainly getting a vaccine is a very serious intervention which should be approached cautiously and only after a lot of research. But, again, they can still save lives, even though they are in many ways imperfect, often dangerous themselves. But still, most people get vaccines, even many vaccines, and never look back (they may get asthma or allergies from the vaccines, and usually never realize it, but very few get tetanus or meningitis, etc.).

But, again, it is not true that all vaccines are always ineffective. Do you have an alternative explanation to explain why rates of measles, rubella, chickenpox, and Hib disease (and, in my opinion, polio) went from large numbers to almost none within a few years' of the vaccines' introduction? It would have been better not to have introduced the measles and chickenpox vaccines: they were usually mild diseases which conferred many benefits to those who went through them naturally. Although in some cases they DID cause death or permanent disability, which is why I think the choice to get them must be left as an option to parents. I've talked about the others a lot. Rubella is also valuable for all children to get naturally, as nearly all used to, including me. It is a harmless disease for everyone but fetuses in the first months of development. The book The Age of Autism explains how mercury in medical products enabled the change of rubella to a much more devastating disease, causing severe birth defects in many babies. Hib disease caused severe cases in 20,000 babies a year in the US in the '80s before the vaccine, and 1,000 of them died of it. Within a few years of the vaccine's introduction, deaths from Hib disease had fallen to close to zero.

At this time we don't know how many people would have disabling or deadly cases of VPDs if most people stopped vaccinating. I believe that most children would be healthier without any vaccines, but that there would be many individual children disabled or killed by diseases like tetanus or Hib disease, and, if rubella came back, we might once again have many thousands of babies a year born with congenital rubella syndrome. We don't know, and it is impossible for anyone to predict, but we shouldn't forget that the reason why we have almost zero deaths from these diseases now is because almost 100% of children have gotten the vaccines for them.

What we need is careful records of ultimate outcomes in every single resident of the US of both vaccination (every single one received, date, age, brand, lot number, and any reactions, even mild ones) and non-vaccination, of public access, and others the same patient received, to help parents make the decision.

But everyone must read about and try to imagine how terrible most of the VPDs could be and once were. Of course better nutrition helps, and clean water prevents water-borne cases of polio (it's also air-borne), typhoid, and cholera. But arguing from the position of living in an advanced society with little serious contagious disease (or non-contagious ones like tetanus) because nearly all children have gotten all the vaccines for them does not take into account all the factors necessary for making the vaccine decision.

There are alternatives which should be available to everyone, and careful records should be kept of how successful they were in preventing or treating serious diseases, mainly vitamin C for everything, vitamin A especially for measles, D for flu, and homeopathic prophylaxis and remedies to prevent and treat the diseases. I agree that it would be excellent if we no longer needed vaccines. But we still have a lot of work to do to reach that point, mainly a plan for how to deal effectively with severe diseases when they occurred, or to prevent ones like tetanus or meningitis.

I think it's interesting how this issue has created two opposing paradigms, both essentially religious in nature. Several years ago there was an article at Shot of Prevention about how vaccines created a super-hero force field around the child who had gotten all the vaxxes, protecting him from evil as an invisible shield around his body. And it was interesting to think about the mindset of mothers and children persuaded to accept all the vaccines on offer for the sake of acquiring this magical superhero protection conferred only upon the practitioners of the vaccine religion. And I could see the attraction of the idea. Good mothers make sure they give their children the invisible cloak of protection.

And now there's an opposing paradigm, that of the healthy child of nature, good, healthy, organic food (vegetarianism has fallen by the wayside as an aspect of this super protection of nature since so many vaccine-damaged children are grain-intolerant and have to eat Paleo), few or no drugs or antibiotics or other medical interventions, breast fed, and the promise is that such a child will be healthy and vigorous, even without any vaccines to prevent to VPDs. Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains (read stoked up on vaccines). I agree for the most part with this paradigm, but recognize that it's incomplete, and, without vaccines, a sizeable minority would be disabled or killed by the diseases when they came back. Some babies would die of Hib disease, some invisible wounds would cause tetanus, some would have limbs amputated as a result of meningitis.

I think it's important to recognize the limitations of each paradigm, and recognize that there is no perfect solution. Many will be harmed if they either get some or many vaccines or if they refuse them. Not equally weighted, but the act of balancing them must be left up to well-informed parents.

Eschewing the anti-vaccine epithet increases the power of the word to shame naïve young parents. Young African Americans disarmed the word nigger when they claimed it as their own. The original anti-vaxxers weren’t ashamed to be called anti-vaccine. They owned the word and joined anti-vaccination leagues.

The original anti-vaxxers would be dismayed, disheartened, and very likely disgusted to see their descendants calling for safer vaccines.

I passed the movie Trace Amounts around to 30 different families and by and large it was a waste of time. They all internalized the message: mercury is bad, vaccines are good.

Damn it, vaccines are not good, not safe, not effective, and not necessary.
To believers, the word vaccine is synonymous with the words safe, safety, and protection. When we pair those words, we activate pharma-planted messaging in the minds of The Herd: “Vaccines are safe and effective.” “Vaccines have saved more lives blah, blah, blah.” Hence, the words safe, safety, and vaccines should never be used in the same sentence.

To break the spell, we have to imbue the word vaccine with accurate meaning. We can’t do that by calling for safer vaccines. We do that by calling vaccines what they are: poison, toxins, weapons, etc. What do they do? They poison, assault, inflame, infect, bastardize, weaken, destroy, and kill. What is the result? Genetic bastardization with genes from viruses, bacteria, insects, mammals, genetically modified substances, male and female human fetal DNA, etc. What is the legacy of the vaccine program? Diseased, distracted, depressed, damaged, dysfunctional, dying, and dead people. What are the costs? Impossible to calculate and impossible to repay. What are the ethics of the vaccine program? Greed, fraud, deception, and very likely mind control, infertility, eugenics, and world domination.

Messaging to the indoctrinated should be succinct and bold. “Anti-vax and proud.” “Unvaxxed and unafraid.” “Unvaxxed and healthy.” “Of course I’m anti-vaccine.” “Vaccines are anti-science.” “The science is settled: vaccines injure and kill.” “Babies are not born vaccine deficient.” “Vaccines injured my baby.” “Breast milk: the only vaccine my kids will ever get.” “Got eczema? Thank your vaccines?” “Got food allergies? Thank the CDC.” “Vaccines kill.” “Vaccines make you stupid.” “Vaccines are poison.” “Vaccines are a racket.” “Vaccines kill babies.” “Vaccines destroy lives.” “Vaccine injury is 100%.” “If you’re vaccinated, you’re vaccine injured.” “Vaccines are a lie.” “The CDC lies.” “Herd immunity is a lie.” “Ban vaccines now.” “End the vaccine scam.” “Ask me about William Thompson.” “Ask me about SV 40.” “Ask me about insertional mutagenesis.” “Read the vaccine package inserts.” “You can never unvaccinate.” “The only safe vaccine is the vaccine you don’t get.” “If you’re anti-fraud, you’re anti-vaccine.” “I’m immunized against vaccine propaganda.” Etc.

Doctors cannot ethically vaccinate with vaccines that were brought to market and are marketed unethically. All vaccines were brought to market and are marketed unethically. Vaccinating violates the ethical principles of informed consent, beneficence, absence of maleficence, and justice. Ethical violations should be reported to licensing bodies. Bullying patients with vaccines is extortion, a crime that should be reported to the police. Lawsuits should be filed.

I look forward to the day when public awareness is so great that vaccine sociopaths are jailed, vaccines are banned, and vaccines are remembered as a remnant from a dark and evil time.

No, there is and can be no safe vaccine. But they can still save lives. Laura, what kind of proof would you want that some would die of measles if no one were vaxxed for it in the US today? I have the following figures for measles deaths:

http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/low-fatality-rate-in-european-measles-outbreak-cdc-report/#.VkVL3rnluUk

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

The first is for a measles outbreak in Europe in 2011. There were 26,074 diagnosed cases with nine deaths. I read somewhere else that there were fifteen cases of probably permanent disability. So 3 in 10,000 cases died.

The second is for official UK figures of incidence and deaths from measles every year since WWII. The UK started giving the MMR in 1988: it gave the separate vaccines before that, but far from universally, and most children continued to catch natural measles through the '80s. If you look at the '80s figures, there were one or two deaths per 10,000 cases. So for 1985, just chosen randomly by me, there were 97,408 cases of measles diagnosed, with 11 deaths. 1.2 deaths per 10,000 cases. The third is Dr. Langmuir's article from 1963, with charts showing death rates in different age groups. In children between three and ten, it was less than one death per 10,000 cases. As high as four per 10,000 cases in babies less than one year old. The fourth is to a Vaxtruth article, substantiating that in the US in 1960 there were four million cases a year with an average of 450 deaths a year.

The figures from Europe were recent, from six years ago, in a country with guaranteed free hospital care for all, and yet they still had nine deaths from measles. Because even now, there is no good treatment for viral diseases. Antibiotics usually, but don't always, work to treat bacterial complications.

There would be deaths from measles if measles came back in the US. I could live with that, just as I take with equanimity the news that there were 800 deaths in children from flu in a given year. I do not know them and I was not responsible for safeguarding their lives and health. Most children would be better off getting natural measles, chickenpox, etc., but some would die, and some would be disabled. I don't feel guilty because I just try to give all the information I have, but stop short of saying I"d ban all vaccines for everyone.

You have to leave it up to the parents. The parents of a child killed by measles or whatever would be very unhappy if he would have gotten the vaccine for his child, but antivaxxers had successfully stopped the administration of the vaccine everywhere in the US. Parents have to be given the information and then be left to make the choice that seems most appropriate to them. You are certain that it would be better for all children not to get any vaccine, but what are you going to say to the families of children who die from Hib disease or measles? Fair enough if you say This is what happened to my child. I say it all the time. But by what right would you say I'm not going to let you get that vaccine for your child no matter how much you want it, no matter how fragile his health is from immunocompromise, because I'm certain that even death from Hib disease is better than ADHD from a vaccine reaction. Maybe, maybe not, but it has to be left to the parents to inform themselves, talk with family and friends about it, and make their free and uncoerced choice.

Vaccines have dangerous ingredients, and do tamper in unforeseen and unforeseeable ways with the immune system. Granted. But in 1985, 20,000 babies a year in the US were getting severe cases of Hib meningitis or other kinds of Hib disease. 1,000 of them died. At this time, there are like one or two deaths a year from Hib disease. No matter how dirty or inadequately tested the vaccine is, it has still cut the rate of death from HIb disease from a large number to almost none, and the families of those children who would have been disabled or died from it, but didn't because of the vaccine, are grateful for the protection it gave their children.

Cia,

You wrote:

"... but it is still true that there are hundreds of children a year since the vaccines were released who did NOT die of measles etc, who otherwise would have."

There is no evidence to support that statement.

Additionally, if the resources which have been used to develop, promote, and provide vaccines would have been channeled toward actual health improvement campaigns, infectious diseases would not be feared, would be readily cleared, and our "herd immunity" at this point in time would be off the charts amazing.

Cia,

What type of informed choice can be made when the needed studies have never been done?

What type of truthful information can be given when the only information available is based on lies, deception, and fraud?

Why permit the continued use of never-proven-safe, known-to-be-dangerous, known-to-be-lied-about products?

The press conference was powerful and I hope informing for more than a few. I greatly appreciate the courage shown and sacrifices made in effort to end the vaccine injury epidemics by all involved and many others.

Laura,
First of all I want to honor the incredible work that you do. Every time I hear you speak I am moved to tears. Every time I read one of your articles I learn something new. You are a gift to this movement and everyone who is trying find their way in this very difficult and confusing landscape of store bought science, diversions, cover-ups and blatant lies.

I appreciate that you are calling on me to “be brave” which are words that came from my own mouth. No one should be above the challenge to stand in their truth. However, I don’t believe you have accurately portrayed my position on the issue of vaccine safety and choice. Rather than getting bogged down in the nuance of my message here I will simply say that anyone who is interested can see and hear everything that I have said by visiting my Facebook page (Del Bigtree) because I have virtually been living in front of a camera in the public eye since our movie Vaxxed was released last year.

I believe the power of this movement is in our diversity. We do not have one single message because we are a growing body of dynamic individuals that have been drawn to this discussion from a vast array of perspectives. From your stated position that there should be a moratorium on all vaccines to Bobby Kennedy’s position in support of a vaccine program that is safe for everyone, I believe what unites us is really a much more simple theme… Freedom. The mainstream media would like to label everyone in our movement as anti-vaccine because it’s a convenient way to discount our diversity and scare away anyone who is just beginning to question the corruption surrounding vaccine science. But the truth is the one thing that everyone in this country should agree on is that we are in control of our own bodies and the bodies of our children. Our founding fathers would be appalled to discover that we are passing laws that give our government the ability to inject American citizens with whatever they want, whenever they want as often as they want without our permission.

When the mainstream media calls Bobby Kennedy an anti-vaxxer they are lying. Instead of challenging people like Bobby or I to succumb to the label that a corrupted media establishment has put upon us, I would hope that you would join us in asking that the press do their job and report the truth, celebrate the diversity of our movement, investigate the scientific frauds and conflicts of interests that we have revealed, and demand that they shake themselves free of corporate and government influence as we did in our speeches at the National Press Club. I am a journalist who is concerned that the death of our free press is leading to the destruction of a generation of our children and the the end of our democracy. Bobby Kennedy is an environmental lawyer who believes that the most toxic, non-radioactive substance in the universe, Mercury, which he has spent his career trying to remove from our environment, is even more dangerous when injected into innocent children and pregnant women. You are the mother of a vaccine injured child who has investigated in depth the lies and corruption that have lead to a vaccine program that robbed your son of the quality of life every citizen in this nation should be entitled to.

Our movement will expand today because some people will be moved by your message, others will join because of the clarity of Bobby’s ideology, perhaps a few will relate to the way I am investigating the issue of corrupted vaccine science and journalism, but the greatest awakening will not be because of those of us who stand on stages it will be by those countless individuals who will challenge their friends and families to open and reasonable discussions about vaccine safety and efficacy over dinner tables and chat rooms across the world. To them I want to impart that “being brave” is not about taking on someone else’s message it’s about standing in the truth that our own hearts and minds lead each of us to. That is what we stand for. That is what unites us. And that is why our movement is re-awakening people to the dream that our founding fathers had of a free nation where all men, all women, all races, all ideologies, religions, medical practices and choices are created equal.

Crickets in congress too.

Isn't this the third or fourth time HuffPost has been observed doing this?

There was the original review of Vaxxed that got yanked last year.
A story last few weeks about vaccines being made by lying, cheatn' PHarma companies...
And now two more yesterday?

What do they all have in common? Oh, yeah- they dare speak in open terms about vaccine injury.

“We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.”

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/assange-truth-corporate-media/#oDd3FGPfebJSHS8P.99

"There are no coincidences in this world." I can attest. When the pediatrician had no vaccine supply remaining he directed us to the Tupelo Public Health Clinic for our son's scheduled shots. We are certain that these all came from multi-dose vials. We presented it in discovery in Court . It is all on the record in Wax v. Aventis, et al. We showed the McG of Thimerosal in the cumulative quantity and the poison that it is. Our case was removed to Vaccine Court but was stayed by Judge Weinstein. First time by a U.S District Court. That triggered the "Lilly Rider" attached to the Homeland Security Bill in 2002. Our case was dismissed in District Court. No facts, no science and no due process. Just raw power.
Now the media is complicit with Big Pharma and government agencies who portray themselves as guardians of the "greater good." They call you names and laugh at your skepticism. Well let me tell you folks. I took an oath many years ago to uphold and protect the Constitution. That is where your real "freedom" stems from. Not some hack or shill or middleman to political correctness. I won;t let them get away with the murder of our child. I care for him every day and dread the notion that they will bury me first. But I am not going quietly.