All His Life
WaPo Reports Dr. Mark Geier May Receive Millions in Restitution

Has James Lyons-Weiler Lost It?

Say whatNote: We excerpted James Lyons-Weiler' article last month, as is our norm. We try to bring you news and POV from across the vaccine and health freedom community. Below is a "rebuttal" to his article from documentary filmmaker Leslie Manookian  ("The Greater Good.") (PS) That's not Leslie in the photo!

By Leslie Manookian

In his recent article, “New York Times Has Lost It,” James Lyons-Weiler wrote that, “Mandates without exemptions create a situation where those who are destined to be injured by vaccines will be found, and injured, with mathematical certainty” – a line of reasoning he’s employed before.

So he’s advocating for mandates as long as there are exemptions? Really? What about freedom and bodily autonomy? What about first do no harm? I wonder how any educated reader can take him seriously when he espouses such dangerous ideas.

Vaccines injure all who receive them. ALL. There is no such thing as a safe dose of mercury or aluminum or many of the other toxins. There is no science proving what that level is. Any scientist who argues that only some individuals are susceptible to vaccine injury despite any science to substantiate this assertion is not a true scientist. Mercury, aluminum, and all the other poisons in vaccines don’t miraculously become health promoting when contained in a vaccine. Advocating for mandates with exemptions for those “susceptible few” sounds like a vaccine maker’s dream come true, doesn’t it? How’s that working out in California where there’s a veritable witch hunt for doctors who write medical exemptions?

Vaccine makers know their products cause harm and that unless they can buy off every single politician, suppress all the science, and control all the media and social media, then at some point, more and more people will deduce the truth of vaccine injury and death.  And when that happens, a point which is getting closer with each day, the next best thing for them will be to test everyone to see who’s genetically susceptible - they’ll just say, ok, some people are harmed but vaccines are still a benefit to society so let’s test who’s at risk and carry on as normal. And they’ll make buckets on those tests to make up for lost profits on vaccines. (Isn’t this what Lyons-Weiler has proposed?) Most importantly, they’ll still control the narrative and have a frightened populace under their thumb.

Remember that little piece of legislation called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986? Remember how this landmark legislation was supposed to safeguard those “susceptible few” for their service to society and make it easy on their families to obtain compensation for that service? Yet since its implementation the vaccine injured can’t sue and the vaccine makers enjoy blanket immunity while the vaccine schedule has tripled and our freedoms have been removed. By most accounts the NCVIA has been an unmitigated disaster for Americans and a boon for vaccine makers.

The scenario I describe, what Lyons-Weiler promotes, is exactly the same play out of the same playbook. Moreover it’s the same tactic they’ve used to silence those who understand that vaccines cause autism. Hannah Poling anyone?

Think about it. If you were a vaccine maker and millions of folks were becoming educated all around the globe and demanding bodily autonomy, freedom, and genuine accountability and liability for the vaccine makers, you’d recognize the writing was on the wall, wouldn’t you? You’d realize the best course of action at this point is damage control, right?  So what would you do?

Your first goal would be to manage the conversation so that you could retain control of the market. And how would you do that? Simply concede that there are indeed a “few susceptible” individuals and recommend testing to determine who’s susceptible. Then you reap all the kudos of being the good guy while deflecting away from the true issue of poisonous, failing vaccines.

Next, you create the tests to determine those “few susceptible” individuals. (Lyons-Weiler’s stated goal in other communications.) This is vital as you not only replace your lost profits from conceding some people are harmed you retain control of the conversation. You develop a test or two. You say it’s all genetic. You say the form of mercury in vaccines isn’t the problem - it’s your genes. You pay scientists to conduct studies and ghost write papers saying the aluminum is nothing to worry about. The media aids you in this endeavor, as they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations and state. The uneducated and naïve public buys the story because the vaccine makers “did the right thing” and we skip merrily along towards complete loss of freedoms.

70% of Americans already take at least one prescription drug and over 50% take two. This is health? No, this is the pharmaceutical cartel’s dream come true. Buying into the notion that vaccine mandates are fine as long as there are exemptions is tantamount to accepting the word of the wolf in sheep’s clothes.

Vaccines today are NOT safe, period. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy, period. There is, and never will be, a place for medical mandates of any kind in a free society. The sooner our community starts calling out those who defend vaccines, vaccine mandates, and the practice of vaccination, the better.

Leslie Manookian is a former successful Wall Street business executive and an award-winning documentary film producer and writer. She conceived, wrote and produced The Greater Good a documentary exploring vaccines. She has served on the board of the Weston A. Price Foundation is a founding Board Member of Health Freedom Idaho. She is a qualified homeopath, nutrition and wellbeing junky, and a health freedom advocate. Active on the legislative front, she works to protect rights to medical and health freedom at home in Idaho and across the nation and has played a leading role in defeating legislation in Idaho, which would have reduced health freedom, medical rights, and privacy as well as helping gain consumer access to raw milk. She has been featured in dozens of TV, radio, print, and Internet interviews as well as appearing at numerous conferences. She holds an MBA from the University of Chicago, a BA from Middlebury College, and M.L.C.Hom from Lakeland College of Homeopathy.


Kevin Flynn

I am a personal friend of his and I can easily speak on his behalf and say that he is AGAINST any mandates at all.

This protest or attack, however you choose to voice it, is completely baseless.
He has never made any statement that says he is okay with mandates.

Unfortunately Leslie Manookian isn't altogether a thorough reader or at least something in the language simply escapes her.

I would like to have her connect the dots how she goes from his statement of "taking away exemptions is bad because it ensures injury" to "I am all for mandates. Just as long as they allow exemptions"

Please do this for us because this article does not connect those two dots.

Either way I will offer some perspective.

If you allow context then you will much more easily understand why he said what he said.

If you want to stop a thing from happening, you MUST talk about THAT THING.

He wants to stop the state from removing exemptions. They are trying to do this as we speak. The do not want to allow religious or conscientious objections. If this is allowed, then they will go after removing medical exemptions.

If they were trying to pass mandates then he would have said "Passing a mandate is bad because ABC" Since there are mandates in place already it would be moot to discuss.

I hope this makes more sense to you.

Also, consider strategy for a second. Just as the government doesn't bombard all of our rights all at once and they piece each encroachment over time separately, so much we dismantle their grip as such.

If we full on attack all and any mandates you will get a resound NO vote each time.

So go for the low hanging fruit. "Hey look I am not asking the state to put down their guns, just to stop aiming them at children"

Once they do that THEN you can go after the guns...

Does any of this make sense??

He's trying to get an agreeable YES from the state about blocking their own actions.

Remember Dr. Healy

James Lyons-Weiler was clear and unambiguous in his criticism of vaccine mandates. I cannot fathom how what he wrote could be interpreted as a defense of mandates. If defending exemptions makes him pro-mandates, then that makes all of us pro-mandates. What tortured logic could have led Manookian to such a conclusion? Rather than attack him, I'd like to see Manookian endorse Lyon-Weiller's call for a boycott of the New York Times - the newspaper that has done more to perpetuate the autism epidemic than perhaps any other news source.

Manookian relies heavily on straw-man arguments... Lyons-Weiler never said there's a safe dose of mercury or aluminum or that either one is health promoting. He never said exemptions are the solution to vaccine injury. He never said vaccines are safe. He never said vaccine mandates are fine. And he never used the words "susceptible few," yet Manookian put those two words in quotes, claiming he said them somewhere, but she doesn't provide a link and it doesn't come up in a Google search.

Perhaps most disturbing is Manookian's opposition to testing (though hypothetical at this point) that could identify a child who has a likelihood of being injured by vaccines. Should we toss out all of the medical tests that tell us if we're susceptible to cancer, heart disease and other serious conditions - just because they're imperfect or could be misinterpreted? Should we sacrifice children to grievous harm from vaccines, simply because all vaccines cause harm? We all know plenty of kids whose lives were not destroyed by vaccinations. The majority, in fact, are functioning well despite their vaccines. To suggest that children should not be tested to prevent serious vaccine injury is probably the most dangerous idea I've heard from anyone in our community, and I hope it doesn't gain traction.

Manookian claims that vaccine manufacturers will welcome these tests, even conduct them and corrupt the results. So throw in the towel and don't even try to save some lives?

Comparing testing for vaccine injury to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is another questionable concept of Manookian's. Testing for vaccine injury has the potential to protect children and save lives. A law that compensates children for vaccine injury - even if everyone who deserved compensation received it - will not save a single child. Just to demonstrate how the NCVIA was NOT set up to protect children, the law permits vaccine manufacturers the right to not disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. How is that anything like testing a child to see if he's going to be damaged by a vaccine?

I'm extremely disappointed in Manookian's baseless attack on James Lyons-Weiler. And I challenge her and anyone who agrees with her to watch the Attkisson/Healy interview, and tell us Dr. Healy is wrong about looking for a susceptible subset of children for whom vaccination is a serious health risk.

Francis Weibel

This discussion reminds me of U.S. medical history that was so well told by Harris Coulter's in Divided Legacy, Volume III. If you are not familiar with it, I encourage you to read this book.

In a early chapter Coulter discusses how, in the early 1800s, the basic assumptions of the orthodox medical doctors (allelopaths) differed from the other schools (homeopaths and others). The allelopaths believed that disease was cured by the aggressive use of technology (bleeding and purging, mercury nostrums, etc) The opposition believed otherwise: that disease was cured through the natural enhancing of the bodies ability to fight disease.

Further, the orthodoxy believed that only they understood the nature of disease and that the sick must trust in the doctor's ability to cure. And the sick's personal experience made little difference as everyone got pretty much the same treatment. The opposition believed differently as they listened more to the patient, had a broader range of treatments and were more tolerant of lay practicing of medicine.

We see the same divisions in the vaccination debates and in this thread's debate: One extreme insists that we use natural way to immunize ourselves (and our children) against disease, that the use of technology (vaccines) is dangerous, that we need to understand the science behind these issues, and that we are equals to doctors. The other extreme insists that technology can provide immunity, and that the scientists who developed this technology know what they are doing, and that we should trust them. Each side has a system that can be considered scientific, but each starts from different premises.

In a later chapter Coulter discusses how, in the late 1800s, the homeopaths had bitter (and destructive) internal debates over what they (homeopaths as a group) should be. On one side were the purists (classical homeopaths) who closely followed Hahnemann's doctrine: that only one medicine be prescribed at a time and it must match the symptoms (not diagnosis) of the patient. They comprised about 5% of the population of homeopaths. The other 95% of homeopaths felt, as classical homeopathy is difficult to learn and practice, that is okay to be expedient and rely on disease diagnosis and prescribe many medicines at one time. They also attempted to emulate orthodox doctors in other ways which infuriated the purists.

In this thread's debate we see the same divisions: one side insisting on purity of position and the other side willing to adapt the language of the orthodoxy in order further their aims. So which one the right way? Classical homeopathy (the 5%) went through a long decline in the early 1900s, but has rebounded and becoming popular again. The other 95% joined the allelopaths and disappeared in the U.S. as a group. This makes me think that in a 100 years the anti-vaccine purists will still be around a distinct group. On the other hand, just as the homeopaths forced the orthodoxy to change (improve) their practice of medicine, I believe that anti-vaccine pragmatists will better luck producing some change in the next 10 years that ameliorate some of the suffering that children currently go through. I don't believe the two sides are necessarily mutual exclusive.

I will end with a comment on (vaccine) mandates. When one opposes mandates, one creates the impression that its a okay for a expectant mother not to take care of her health or her babies health. Its her right to not vaccinate, to feed her child the standard American diet, to let him or her get a bad case of measles and to become blind. To prevent this, we have mandates. Maybe it makes more sense (for the anti-vaccine side) to redefine what we mean by the term and advocate for mandating that natural immunity be enhanced with natural supplements and other appropriate lifestyle habits.

Cynthia Cournoyer

Political strategy?

Let's pretend for a moment that there now exists a "test that could tell who was susceptible to vaccine damage." Then look at what would happen.

The test would be banned -- because pro-vax says "everyone must be vaccinated to make them work."

There is no political strategy that forwards the ultimate conclusion that vaccines are harmful. If you strategize your position by giving them the adages that vaccines were good in the past, vaccines are good in altered schedules or doses, then you have already lost your argument that vaccines could be harming all people, either a little or a lot.

So you could pretend to be "reasonable" and "scientific" but what you think you are fighting for, they will never give you. If you fight for respect, you will not receive it because the moment you stray from the schedule or the mandates, you are a kook. If you are fighting for choices and freedom it will be allowed only until the unvaccinated population grows larger and is pointed out and shamed into conformity by being called dangerous.

Remember you are fighting a mantra: vaccines will always be safe and effective. A philosophy. A mindset. They own the "science" and they own the "law." Entering that world to fight it only diminishes your position. I believe that vaccines are based in a flawed science. Everything that changes in that world, new vaccines, new schedules, is based in a belief system that supports the original claim: vaccines will always be safe and effective and for everyone.

Leaving the status quo is scary. Holding on to vaccines-wiped-out-disease and then wishing it could still be somehow possible is what keeps you in that world. It's what keeps one toe in the pool of safe-and-effective, only if, we could make them safer, only if we could make them optional. Don't let them hold you captive.

Some of us choose to get our toe out of the pool.

cia parker


Nowhere have I said that disease rates in the 1880s should be used to justify vaccination now. What I am saying is that we cannot know how serious some of the diseases would be here and now if large numbers stopped giving the most common vaccines like DTaP. Since close to 100% of the entire population has received multiple shots to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, and has done for the past seventy years, how can we know how many cases of diphtheria and tetanus there would be if a lot of people no longer got the vaccines? I just said the other day that we can have little idea of what would happen if polio came back, or Hib disease, diphtheria or tetanus. We can only look at the disease rates before it became routine to give the vaccines to nearly all children. Sure, we can consider whether there are new factors which might reduce the numbers of those severely affected, better nourishment for one thing (doesn't apply to polio), and those who think they are immune to diphtheria or polio because we're in the twenty-first century should be able to do as they like, and whatever happens will give us more information. Diphtheria used to kill tens of thousands of little children a year before the vaccine. It's important that everyone be aware of that fact. You can say Well, they stopped dying of diphtheria seventy years ago, the huge child death rates before the '30s are no longer relevant. But they stopped dying because nearly all children took the vaccine.

We would need to see what happened. About forty thousand people got diphtheria in the throes of the Soviet Union over thirty years ago, and five thousand died of it. The Soviet Union had a lot of cold, homelessness, hunger, and alcoholism which exacerbated the problem. Who knows what it would look like here and now if a lot of people stopped giving the vaccine and it came back? I'm only saying that we no longer have even a group memory of what it was like to have a third of your children die of contagious disease. Well, the memory of polio is still around, and what it was like for epidemics to sweep through town and leave a number of permanently crippled children in its wake.

We need to remember and recognize the dangers of some of the diseases as well as the dangers of the vaccines. Pertussis, smallpox, and measles evolved to become much less virulent than they had been. Diphtheria, tetanus, and polio didn't evolve to become less dangerous, polio really became more dangerous than it had been before industrial chemicals, and HIb disease became much more dangerous than it had been before the DPT.

I think parents are capable of balancing different factors in their minds. It shouldn't become an all or nothing decision either way.

cia parker


I agree: it shouldn't be enough to say that measles very rarely kills a few children, everyone should be vaxxed for it: it is usually relatively mild and beneficial, and healthy children should be allowed to catch it (and mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and pertussis). However, immunocompromised children may be even more likely to have bad vaccine reactions than healthy ones. It is a difficult choice which should be left up to well-informed parents.

And I agree with you that diphtheria was a disease everyone feared, and rightly so. I've said here how my mother had a neighbor boy who got diphtheria in the '30s: his parents called in every doctor in town to try to save him, but he died suffocated by the diphtheric membrane over his throat. All the male babies and toddlers in one Indian tribe in New Mexico were killed by diphtheria in one epidemic in the '30s. I don't think it's appropriate to just say that we should let our immune systems and Nature decide who lives and who dies of contagious disease.

I agree with making distinctions based on how dangerous a disease is. Immunocompromised children should be in a different category than well-nourished, healthy ones past early infancy, although they may be more apt to react than healthy ones. It would have to be left up to the parents to decide.

I think the government should make available trained child care workers who care for babies in the homes of those parents who work outside the home, at a cost the parents could afford to pay. Maybe what the cost of group daycare would have been. I don't think any baby under two or three should have to be in a group child-care setting. But that's not in the offing at this time, and I'd have to say that those children who have to be in daycare, number one, have to get some vaccines, mainly Hib, and that may just have to be the way it is. Or make it voluntary and assume that most parents would want to give their babies the vaccines for the diseases which pose the greatest danger to them. The pertussis vaccine doesn't work at all on babies, and is highly ineffective even in older children. But it can be treated with high-dose IV vitamin C. And then there are always the nosodes.

Cynthia Cournoyer

Thank you for writing this Leslie.

Jenny Allan

@ Cia Parker "But pertussis became much milder by 1950, and at that point the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease. At that point they should have stopped giving it."

Yes -absolutely Cia. I remember myself and 4 siblings all whooping around the house together, around 1951. It lasted about a week before -back to school! Our Mum, who lived through 2 world wars wanted no 'malingerers' under her feet! My husband remembers catching diptheria in the late 1940s. He recovered unscathed, but this illness could kill and was greatly feared by parents. Our mothers nursed us through all the other 'inevitable' childhood diseases. They would have been shocked at the idea of pre-school nurseries, but these days both parents need to work in order to have a reasonable standard of living. Governments the world over now rely on the enlarged taxation base.

There were no pertussis vaccines then, although vaccines against polio, diptheria, pertussis and tetanus were soon introduced in the UK, followed decades later by measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, and now several strains of meningitis, pneumonia, chicken pox and HPV. More and more are being developed and are in the pipeline. Mumps and rubella were always considered benign diseases; in fact mothers were keen to 'get them over with' during childhood, because of the problems caused by mumps, particularly in adult males when it can cause sterility, and rubella in early pregnancy damaging the unborn child. Mothers held parties to deliberately spread these infections.

Decades of vaccines have reduced the transferred immunity from breast feeding, and reduced the immunity transferred from mother to baby during the first year of life. This has resulted in measles being dangerous if caught by very young babies, who now have little naturally acquired protection. At the other end of the spectrum young adults are now catching mumps in their teens due to the mumps component in the MMR vaccine now admitted to 'wear off' after around 10 years. Another case of an unnecessary vaccine causing more problems than the disease ever did. There is a definite official 'blackout' imposed on any data about measles cases in previously vaccinated individuals, but the Disney cases in California contained a significant % of vaccinated persons.

There is a huge sponsored media attempt in the UK for the HPV vaccine to be made freely available to boys as well as girls. This vaccine is known to potentially cause harm (vaccine insert) and only targets a few strains of HPV. Other cancer-causing strains can move in to the vacuum. Besides, most cases of cervical cancer occur in late middle age. As yet no-one can say for definite the vaccine protection will last that long.

With all these vaccines, it was expected child health would improve. Instead we have an explosion of children with 'special needs' including autism and a plethora of other, once uncommon, conditions like diabetes and asthma. The time is long overdue for a root and branch 'audit' of all child scheduled vaccines. Any even suspected of causing more harm than good should be suspended immediately. There's no place in our western civilisations for any 'mandatory' vaccines, with or without 'exemptions' . The Neuremberg Code insists on informed consent for all medical procedures, be they preventative or curative.

cia parker

I forgot to put this up in my comment.

"Researchers have found that Hib meningitis dramatically increased following the increase in vaccines given to babies. Scheibner refers to the work of Smith & Haynes (1972) who found a “399% increase in the incidence of invasive Hib infections recorded from 1942-50 , through 1951-59 to 1960-68. Similar trends were presented by Bjune et al.(1991). The best demonstrable common factor in this period is a documented push for increased mass vaccination. This explanation is especially plausible since the number of cases has not increased in babies below three months of age since 1942.” (9)"

cia parker


I listened to part of Dr. Humphries' talk. I recognize that human activity has done a lot to cause unforeseen damage of many kinds. And I recognize that the Hib, pneumo, and meningococcal bacteria are common commensals in the respiratory passages of most people a lot of the time without ever causing harm to most. I learned a few years ago that Hib meningitis was not a big problem in 1940, but after the introduction of the DPT in 1948 (which depresses immune function for at least a month after it's given) that it became an ever bigger problem, quadrupling in incidence between 1940 and 1967. For a long time it was easily treatable with antibiotics, until antibiotic resistance in the '70s and '80s. And then it wasn't. Until the vaccine squelched it.

I don't know all the answers. But as Dr. Thomas said, the Hib vaccine is believed to have prevented 10,000 cases of meningitis in babies and small children, and certainly that figure is much higher now. Many of them would have died. It would be better if all babies were breastfed until self-weaning and no baby or toddler was put in daycare, but many of them are going to be in daycare whether I like it or not. If their parents think that given the circumstances, and being in daycare is a very dangerous circumstance, that it would probably be a good idea to get the baby the Hib vaccine, even though it is risking serious vaccine damage, I would have to say that they are probably making a wise choice. But I would rather see them move heaven and earth to breastfeed for years and NOT use daycare, and NOT get the Hib or Prevnar vaccines.

I agree that it really sucks to have or be an autistic child. It's painful and disappointing at every moment for the rest of your life. I haven't had a child die from a VPD, but I think that would be unbearably painful as well.

To me it seems that Dr. Humphries is not taking the cruelty of the diseases sufficiently into account. Yes, the pertussis vaccine was very dangerous in many ways. On the other hand, it was pretty effective at preventing pertussis, which caused many thousands of deaths a year until after WWII. It caused horrific brain damage in many, but probably it saved more lives than it took at the beginning. But pertussis became much milder by 1950, and at that point the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease. At that point they should have stopped giving it, and it would have saved a lot of people. But I don't think it started out being a bad idea.

Bernadette Pajer

Hi Leslie,

Jack (James) is a very dear friend of mine, and I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I met him when he first began his journey to enlightenment, and he is one of the most passionate advocates for medical freedom and a compassionate scientist and activist, looking for best ways to heal those who've been harmed and get change to the awful policies. Sometimes he puts out ideas that are transitional -- that look for ways to protect the most vulnerable while mandates exist. We all know mandates will not vanish overnight. That is our goal -- I believe it is Jack's goal--but we must do all we can to protect those being harmed in the here and now.

I hope you have the opportunity to talk to Jack so that you can understand his heart and soul are with us.


Kathy Sincere


Re Hib, meningococcal and pneumococcal infection – Dr. Suzanne Humphries “Live at Cal Jam 2018”. Very enlightening.

Donna Jo Kazee

I'm not sure what this was about, but I suggest we don't alienate people on our side. As a scientist, of course he wants safer vaccines and is optimistic for a future where there is truly a safer alternative for artificial "immunization." He realizes that even if we got rid of every single vaccine on the schedule, some real or manufactured pandemic would send people crying for a new vaccine. We have dabbled in this, and now there are a considerable number of people who think that vaccines are good. The best thing we can preserve is choice, while at the same time exposing all the ways vaccines are dangerous and often ineffective.

As an autism and seizure disorder mom, there isn't one day that goes by that I don't wish I had done things differently -- that I hadn't been bullied into going against my instincts. As the mom of a child with immunodeficiency, I empathize with all the moms who are terrified of every germ that comes their kiddo's way. Of course, I realize how useless it is to be that way, but I understand how their fear is amped up to hysteria.

I think most of us can take the sum of Dr. Lyons-Weiler's work for what it is. He was in Ohio last month, speaking at our Statehouse about flu-shot-induced Guillain-Barre Syndrome and the dangers of medical mandates. You seem to have taken his words out of context and twisted them in the same ways that others have typically done against "anti-vaxxers."

If we are to win this, it will take every advocate we can get, whether they are full-on anti-vax, pro-freedom, pro-safety, or what. Because this is a battle where there are actual lives constantly at risk, and what might work to convince one person or one legislator is not the same to help another see the light.

As for biomarkers, James has always said those have to be used, not to identify those who can be vaccinated or vaccinated partially, but to save those who currently would be forced into it. Imagine a very real scenario where the entire population was hit with a plague of some sort -- that some people seem intent on us experiencing -- and there were no outs. Also, biomarkers also can be used to counsel people who want to be vaccinated -- as hard as that is for us to imagine. I am about as crunchy as they come, but I also recognize that it's not my right to tell others how to live, and the best I can do is ensure we all are as free as possible and that others can see from my example that you don't have to rush to the doctor and pharmacy for every little issue.



"From my understanding, vaccine mandates should only be considered if:"

Not even then. Not even if all 4 conditions were truly met.
The CDC et al have already proclaimed that all current vaccines are safe and effective and are for highly contagious deadly diseases. We can never agree to any conditions that would make vaccines mandatory.

cia parker


I thought from Mark and Dan's reports on the EV-68 paralysis starting on raspberry farms four years ago,, that they were right in fingering the pesticides used as potentiating another enterovirus than polio in producing similar effects as chemical-potentiated polio had.

My daughter got it the last week of August three and a half years ago, and she hadn't had any shot since 2005, when I got her a DT booster. It was like in the descriptions of polio: she had cold-like symptoms and a very severe cough which lasted over a month. And the school nurse said at that time that for the first time her hearing had been tested at school, and she had mild hearing loss. I think it was EV-68 meningitis related hearing loss, something which sometimes happened with polio as well. There were hundreds of thousands of school kids sick with it. Only a handful went to the doctor, usually only those with problems breathing or paralysis. Very few of them had gotten any back to school shots, which are usually only for kindergarten and seventh grade entry.

While Guillain-Barré could cause paralysis (I had it at 19 when a tetanus booster paralyzed both arms for several days, and my father was paralyzed by a flu shot), I don't think it makes the most sense in the case of the EV outbreak. There were 115 cases of probably permanent paralysis and 14 deaths, and they peaked four years ago and then fell again, more like an epidemic than a steady state occurrence.

David Weiner,

I agree that vaccines are always dangerous. The question always has to be whether the VPD is more dangerous to your child in your situation than the vaccine. If we still had ten (or a hundred) children dying of diphtheria in every city in America every winter, I think most people would say they thought the probably small risk of the vaccine was worth it to prevent their own child from dying of diphtheria.


I think having a healthy immune system helps a lot in ensuring safe recovery and benefit from the childhood diseases. But young babies and the immunocompromised cannot handle diseases as well as older, healthy, well-nourished children. And some diseases are by their nature very virulent and dangerous, and often kill even healthy, well-nourished people. Such as tetanus and diphtheria, or polio sixty years ago, which crippled and sometimes killed children who had been very active and healthy up to that point. Even healthy Europeans often succumbed to Ebola three years ago, because it's a fairly new disease, and new diseases are the most dangerous.


Death can come as a friend, that's true. But sometimes the decision to vax or not vax can mean the difference between a healthy, active child and a dead or disabled child. And of course it can go either way: a healthy child may easily be destroyed by either a vaccine or a disease. It's a very important decision, and there is no "one size fits all" solution.

cia parker


I agree. There should be no mandates: parents should be able to choose the ones that they want to get for their children or themselves, and they may refuse all of them if they want to.


I have read Dissolving Illusions. It is very impressive. And I am reading The River now. Also very impressive. But I've also read descriptions of children dying of VPDs, and two books about polio in the US in the '50s. And those are also moving and impressive. Knowledge is power, and there is a lot of valuable information on both sides.

My point about the school kids was that we are no longer used to children dying suddenly of contagious disease, when even two hundred years ago, about a third of children died in childhood of contagious disease. It makes me sad to see so many healthy kids talking and laughing at school when my vaccine-damaged daughter can't. But I also recognize that not many kids would die even if no one vaxxed for anything. But some would, and I"d have to leave it to the parents to decide which risk they'd rather take. Also true that very few kids I see at school have a noticeable disability from vaccine damage. Very few autistic the way my daughter is, very few in wheelchairs. They look healthy and vital. In other words, the vaccines don't seem to have devastated them. We'll just have to wait and see what happens: I'm not sure what percentage now believes that vaccines cause autism. No one I know, I have to say, except me.

What I said was not really subjective. I wish that my daughter could have gotten measles and mumps by now, but she hasn't, because they're just not around for nearly all children to get naturally the way they were when I was a child. Polio's not around either, not Hib disease, nor chickenpox. They're not around because the vaccines have done such a good job eliminating them.

cia parker


I don't think that's true. This is the information that I have:

"Before routine use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the burden of pneumococcal disease among children younger than 5 years of age was significant. An estimated 17,000 cases of invasive disease occurred each year, of which 13,000 were bacteremia without a known site of infection and about 700 were meningitis. An estimated 200 children died every year as a result of invasive pneumococcal disease. Although not considered invasive disease, an estimated 5 million cases of acute otitis media occurred each year among children younger than 5 years of age."

Pneumococcal meningitis has never been a reportable disease, but good estimates have shown that while 17,000 got invasive cases of invasive cases of pneumococcal disease, 700 with meningitis, many with permanent damage such as hearing loss, "only" 200 a year died of it before the vaccine was introduced around 2002. That contrasts with the thousand a year dying of Hib disease.

"Before Hib vaccination, about 20,000 children younger than five developed severe Hib disease in the United States each year, and about 1,000 died. By 2006, the number of reported Hib cases was down to only 29 for the year. Now, while the majority of fatalities from Hib disease are reported in developing countries where the Hib vaccine is not widely used, fatalities still occur in developed nations when vaccination rates drop. Seven cases of invasive Hib disease were reported in Pennsylvania during a six-month period starting in October 2008. Only one of the children had received a Hib vaccination (and had received only one of the recommended doses). Three of the children died."

"It is estimated that, annually, there are between 150 and 300 meningococcal deaths in the U.S.,7 with an average of 16 babies under age 12 months dying from the disease8 Children under age two are less likely to die from meningococcal infection compared to older age groups.9"

"Postvaccine follow-up studies have shown a 71% decrease in Hib disease in under-five year olds from 1989 to 1991, and an 82% decrease in Hib meningitis between 1985 and 1991.This vaccine alone is believed to have prevented more than ten thousand cases of meningitis. In 2011 in the US, there were only 14 cases of serious Hib diseases a year, and fewer than 250 non-type B or unknown types of Hib invasive disease respectively."

Dr. Paul Thomas, The Vaccine Friendly Plan, p. 125

This is a decision which must be left to the parents to make. To me, 200 deaths a year from pneumo disease doesn't seem like enough to take the dangerous vaccine, especially when compared to the thousand a year dying of Hib disease, both figures from before the vaccines were introduced, but many parents would feel differently.

Breastfeeding and keeping babies out of daycare and child care centers at church or similar places (La Leche League is where my daughter caught pertussis) would be enough to protect most babies from any of these causes of bacterial meningitis and related disease. And most people have developed natural subclinical immunity to all of them by the age of five. And there are nosodes available for all three diseases. But because so many actually DID get severe, disabling, or fatal cases of these diseases, you'd have to give the parents the facts as we know them and let them choose. But you can see from these figures that pneumo did not become a much greater danger than Hib had been in the years between the introduction of the HIb vaccine and that of the pneumo vaccine. The Hib vaccine really worked and really wiped out Hib disease, and nothing comparable has moved into the niche. I used to think that the fact that it causes peanut allergy meant that no one should gt it, but now I think that Hib disease killed a lot more babies pre-vaccine than peanut allergy ever has. Just grist for the mill, it's up to the parents to discuss it with their relatives and friends, read a lot about it, and make a decision.

Leslie Manookian

And Linda1 Ottoschnaut,
THANK YOU for your very kind words. They are most appreciated!

Leslie Manookian

I hope this is the last thing I post for today as I have to get some other stuff done - BUT in the meantime I wanted to sign off with a few final thoughts.

Some folks have commented that they don't want to go back to a time when there is more disease or risk what might happen if we had no vaccines. My simple question is this, why are you more concerned about the lives of those who might be injured or lost to infectious disease than you are about those lost to vaccine injury and death? Why does one group seem to matter more?? With over 50% of US kids already diagnosed as chronically ill or disabled, hasn't there been enough carnage?

I personally would much rather take my chances with a nutritious diet, herbs, homeopathy, and other supplements, than damage my immune system and then try and fight a bug - any bug.

Lastly, I firm believe it is immoral and tyrannical for the state to impose any medical treatment on a person. The right to main my body and health how I choose is a god given right, not a state granted one. That is why the mandates with exemptions line of think is so insidious. Even if I don't have a genetic susceptibly, it is no one's right to force me to inject mercury, aluminum, or saline for that matter. I likely wouldn't use chemo or radiation in the event I got cancer, if I allow vaccine mandates, the state can make me receive these toxic treatments too. We all know of all the cases of medical kidnapping going on around this country already. It's not ok.

Mandates and freedom can not coexist.


Cia Parker; I have always questioned whether the recent acute flaccid myelitis was actually linked to either the endovirus or pesticide exposure. Some of the victims tested negative for endovirus 68.

Guillian Barrre on the other hand, in my laymans' opinion, is another possibility., ( AKA paralysis by another name)

From the world health organization website

"The first symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome include weakness or tingling sensations. They usually start in the legs, and can spread to the arms and face.
For some people, these symptoms can lead to paralysis of the legs, arms, or muscles in the face. In 20%–30 % of people, the chest muscles are affected, making it hard to breathe.
The ability to speak and swallow may become affected in severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. These cases are considered life-threatening, and affected individuals should be treated in intensive-care units.
Most people recover fully from even the most severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, although some continue to experience weakness.
Even in the best of settings, 3%–5% of Guillain-Barré syndrome patients die from complications, which can include paralysis of the muscles that control breathing, blood infection, lung clots, or cardiac arrest."

(Pretty much all the symptoms of polio,or acute flaccid myelitis)

Guillian Barre has long been a known side effect of flu vaccines, with compensation given by the VICP for Guillian Barre as a vaccine injury.

From the vaccine injury table

XIV. Seasonal influenza vaccines A. Anaphylaxis ≤4 hours.
B. Shoulder Injury Related
to Vaccine Administration
≤48 hours.
C. Vasovagal syncope ≤1 hour.
D. Guillain-Barré Syndrome 3-42 days (not less than 3 days
and not more than 42 days).

For many of the kids who came down with acute flaccid myelitis in this area, the timing of the hospitalization was a couple of weeks after back to school vaccines. One of the parents came out on the media saying their son had started reacting after his vaccine; it was shut down as doctors suddenly decided he was not one of the acute flaccid myelitis cluster, despite having the same symptoms. Soon after this, the CDC decided to pull the nasal flu vaccine because it is " not effective enough" Given that our current flu vaccine is described as 10% effective and the mumps portion of the MMR 5% effective, that decision seems very untypical of the CDC, if made for the reasons stated....
Not facts, just speculation and opinion, but sometimes it is interesting to put puzzle pieces together....


cia parker - the Hib vaccine was brought in to combat meningitis - while the vaccine wiped out Hib infections, the vaccine made no difference to the rate of decline in meningitis deaths. This was because other bacteria stepped up to the plate and caused menigitis in susceptible people (mainly young children) - and now they keep bringing in more meningitis vaccines. So it is a nonsense to say the Hib vaccine has been a success. If a child catches Rubella they have life-long immunity, so mothers don't catch it while pregnant - however if they get the vaccine their immunity wears off by the time they are young adults - just in time to catch rubella while pregnant, causing birth defects. You want that?

David Weiner


"vaccine mandates should only be considered if:

1) A disease has a high rate of mortality.
2) The disease is highly contagious.
3) The vaccine is proven to be safe.
4) The vaccine is effective in preventing transmission."

We should NEVER agree to vaccine mandates, for several reasons. One, we need to draw a line, to establish a principle that can never be violated. Two, if a circumstance such as the one described above were to come about, people would readily accept the vaccine on a voluntary basis. There would be no need to force them to take it. Three, when you give the government an inch, it will take a mile. When the U.S. supreme court decided on the Jacobson case, there were several qualifications like this in its decision upholding vaccine mandates. Yet what happened subsequently? The courts simply took the decision to mean that it is constitutional to mandate vaccines, period.

David Weiner

"Are we more likely to repeal SB277 if we go in saying "all vaccines are poison" or "people have a right to informed medical consent in all situations including with vaccines?""

This is a false dilemma. If people in fact DID have informed medical consent in all situations, including with vaccines, then they would RECOGNIZE that all vaccines are poison. That is precisely why we DON"T have informed consent when it comes to vaccines.

The problem is that people such as JLW want to appear respectable and reasonable in their statements, and sabotage our efforts in the process. Will the vaccine coercionists accept or respect us any more by making hedged statements? Hell no. This is just another reason why we should stop trying to pander to our opponents and start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"No matter how much I might agree with you that all vaccines are poison in some way, I suggest that if people want to kill themselves slowly with tobacco, pot, alcohol, or vaccines, it is their business and not mine. I defend your right to refuse all vaccines as much as I defend (and hope) that people like DR feast on vaccines daily. It is their right to swallow the government claptrap and take the shots."

As a libertarian, I agree that adults have the right to undertake activities that may be harmful to their health. Yet, there is a problem with your statement. As a parent, does anyone have a right to do something that is injurious to their children? Surely, you don't believe that parents have the right to assault their kids in an unrelenting manner for no good reason. And there is another flaw in this "choice" argument. Parents should never be presented with such a decision in the first place, because it should be illegal for a medical professional to carry out vaccination under the current circumstances. Unless and until the medical profession can provide sound, scientific evidence, that it provides benefits exceeding its risks, and communicate both of these clearly, then it must be seen as medical assault, a crime of aggression not to be tolerated in a civilized society.

cia parker


It's more complicated than that. Tetanus spores are everywhere in the environment: originally from the intestinal tracts of many mammals, not just horses, when they poop and the poop dries up and is borne away as dust, the wind takes it everywhere. Probably not in downtown Manhattan, but tetanus spores have been found even in offices of big-city skyscrapers. And if it gets into the flesh in any kind of puncture wound, not just a rusty nail, it can cause tetanus. It was never common, except during warfare with horses around, but it is a very cruel disease and often kills even now with the best hospital treatment. Good wound care is very important, but about half of tetanus cases are from mild wounds like a splinter or one which the person was unaware of at the time. The vaccine, like all vaccines, is not 100% effective, but it's one of the most effective vaccines, and, without mercury, is rarely dangerous.

Polio was mild until it was potentiated not only by DDT but by other chemicals like lead arsenate and other pesticides. Some children were paralyzed just as with polio by enterovirus 68 four years ago, notably some children whose parents grew raspberries using pesticides (reported here four years ago). Not many can say they are 100% sure their children have not had contact with enough of these dangerous chemicals still used now to be guaranteed not to be crippled by polio or EV-68 when they come back. The injected vaccine completely wiped out polio in the US in only a few years. If polio comes back, it is 100% certain that most parents would get the vaccine for their children and themselves.

Diphtheria came back in the former Soviet Union and caused 5,000 deaths in the late '80s and early '90s. We have many poor, crowded areas in the US which might well be hit hard by diphtheria when it came back. It was brought under control in the USSR by massive vaccination campaigns.

Hib disease thirty years ago was causing severe illness in one in two hundred babies and one in thousand babies died, even with the best of hospital care. That's a 20% mortality in those who got clinical cases. The vaccine, while it causes peanut allergy, etc., did wipe out Hib disease. Of course it's true that most children were not susceptible to getting clinical cases, but these days, I think most of us would say that one in a thousand babies dying of a vaccine-preventable disease is fairly high.

Rabies vaccines are routinely given to veterinary students and veterinarians, to prevent possible rabies from animals with unknown backgrounds. Our vet said she gets regular boosters. I'm sure there are a lot of reactions to it, but you'd again have to weigh the risk of rabies infection against the risk of the shot.

I agree that the childhood diseases are usually beneficial and we should let them come back. Pertussis too, and treat it with high-dose IV vitamin C when it occurs in newborns or immunocompromised patients. Hep-A as well. I wanted my daughter to catch chickenpox from me when I had shingles, and she did.

You think I'm just taking up space in this forum? There was a tribe of Indians in New Mexico in the '30s which had an outbreak of diphtheria. Tribal chief Marie Hughes described how it killed every single little boy under three in the whole tribe. You want me to just say that there would be no problem if everyone stopped vaxxing for everything, that the diseases would simply not be a problem if they came back, that the ONLY problem is the greedy, irresponsible vaccine companies? That's not true and I will not say it. We cannot know at this time what would happen if many people stopped vaxxing. I think they SHOULD stop giving most vaccines, but not necessarily the ones I mentioned. That is, they can research it and make their choice, but I think if the DT and possibly Hib for children between 6 and 18 months not breastfed and in daycare, were the only shots routinely offered (not forced), polio if it came back here, I don't think many children would be damaged by them, and I think it's well worth avoiding these diseases.

I whole-heartedly advocate keeping careful records on what vaccines children got and at what ages, and what diseases reappeared, where, in what social groups, and how serious they were. All diseases are constantly changing, independent to a great degree of what humans do. Scarlet fever was a big problem in the seventeenth century, then not a big problem in the eighteenth century, then a big problem again in the nineteenth century, when it killed tens of thousands a year. Smallpox was not a big problem before the eighteenth century, but then became a very big problem, before becoming much milder in the US, at least, after 1897. English sweating sickness suddenly appeared in Europe in the fifteenth century, first appeared in England after soldiers brought it from France, then became a huge killer in the sixteenth century, killing Prince Arthur, Henry VIII's older brother, and nearly killing Anne Boleyn. Then later in that century, it completely disappeared.

So we need to help parents factor in every consideration necessary for making the vaccine decision, and then keep careful records so that parents coming later have recent accurate information on both the diseases in their area and the vaccines for helping them make even better decisions. It's always going to be a careful negotiation between sickness and vaccine damage. Including homeopathic nosodes will be another important factor to keep track of.

This forum will lose credibility if it becomes only a platform for proclaiming that it's only vaccines which are ever the danger, and never the diseases. Most people know that that's not true. I would gladly get rid of most vaccines immediately, but I think the ones I mentioned merit more careful thought. Rubella could potentially come back and cause birth defects, but it's hard to say how likely it is or how devastating it would be. It would be better to offer this and other childhood diseases to be given naturally, one at a time, at the end of the school year in elementary school. And/or take the homeopathic nosode. Or the vaccine if that's what the woman decides to do.

Grace Green

Ottoschnaut, I have to disagree with you that we are selecting for vaccine resistant super humans and weeding out the weak and sickly. It's well known that the higher your IQ the more likely you are to get Aspergers, and also the the super athletic are more likely to suffer a serious reaction to the HPV vaccine. I believe we are destroying our brightest and best for the sake of saving those who are incapable of overcoming minor infections like flu, measles, chickenpox etc. The situation is sadly the reverse of what you suggest.

Angus Files

I cant think of any part of the vaccine poison that would benefit any living organism never mind a complex human, not one microscopic billionth bit of one.

I can reflect when we weren't enlightened- we thought it was utterly irresponsible not to vaccinate-how ones tune changes when your normal healthy born baby becomes a vaccine damaged statistic.

One is a tragedy a million is a statistic.

Pharma For Prison


Kathy Sincere

“It's meaningless to point at a few people getting diseases they were vaccinated for and saying that that proves that vaccines don't work. No one has ever claimed a 100% effectiveness rate for any vaccine: most are around 90% effective. But it means that most vaxxed people are not going to get the disease even when they are exposed.”

This statement is totally subjective and not backed by scientific research.

“But if you walk around any park or school, there are dozens of kids around you fully vaxxed, walking, talking, laughing, socializing. Some of them have asthma or allergies, but most people don't connect those to the vaccines.”

Really? The fact that these kids are “walking, talking, laughing and socializing” doesn’t negate the reality that they have eczema under their jackets, inhalers in their pockets, epi pens in their teacher’s desk or Mom’s purse, vials of epilepsy meds, IBD meds and psychotropic meds (just to name a few) at home, and many doctor’s visits awaiting them after school for their chronic debilitating disorders. My son with Asperger’s can walk, talk, laugh and socialize to some degree but will never drive, work, marry or live independently.

Have you read “Dissolving Illusions” by Dr. Suzanne Humphries or “Plague” by Judy Mikovits and Kent Heckenlively? If you can find a copy of the out-of-print “The River” by Edward Hooper, it’s worth reading all 1070 pages. Mr. Hooper spent 10 years of his life tracing HIV/AIDS to the development of the toxic polio vaccine. Another favorite book is “Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain” by Harris L. Coulter, co-author of A Shot in the Dark.

It IS extremely sad that a six-year old died of rabies this year for lack of a rabies vaccine. An EXTREME, rare example of death from lacking a vaccine. Did the doctors try high dose intravenous Vitamin C that might have saved his life?! The medical community won’t try that for sepsis even though it has a very high cure rate.

Death is extremely sad and yet peaceful. I think of that when I place flowers on my son’s grave. The worst nightmare is watching your surviving children go daily through a living hell that is called Vaccine Injury.

Laura Hayes

In response to "Are we more likely to repeal SB277 if we go in saying "all vaccines are poison" or "people have a right to informed medical consent in all situations including with vaccines?":

BOTH are needed! Medical choice freedom must always be demanded, practiced, and protected. Half-truths and lies of omission mislead and often result in rationalizations and the continuance of that which is wrong and dangerous.

In response to "Are you prepared to attack Dr. Bob and Dr. Paul because they dispense vaccines- or do you want them to be allies in our mutual battle to preserve informed medical consent?":

YES, prepared to call them to the mat, and often do! Both took an oath to "First, do no harm." They both know that vaccines harm, make chronically ill, disable, and prematurely kill, yet they are still dispensing and administering them to newborns, infants, toddlers, young children, and teens. That violates their oath to first, do no harm. To worsen matters, we are talking about supposed, yet completely unproven and known to fail regularly, prophylactic treatments, not last-ditch treatments to try to save someone on their death bed.

Question: Would it be okay for a doctor to dispense and administer thalidomide to pregnant women, knowing what is now known, because the patient didn't know enough to refuse it and mistakenly requested it after being indoctrinated with and/or reading dangerous propaganda? Would we want doctors willing to do that in our tent? Would doctors willing to do that help to end the horrific iatrogenic harm and carnage, or prolong and exacerbate it?

Laura Hayes

This link was posted and I read it.

Nowhere in his article does JLW denounce vaccine mandates or call for their immediate termination. Furthermore, he makes it clear that he is a proponent of vaccines with such statements as "While vaccines must be updated to keep up with evolution..." and "’s time we demand advances in research to make vaccines safe."

Where is but one shred of evidence that vaccines are needed, can be made to be safe, or would ever be superior to our God-given immune systems? Where is but one shred of evidence that vaccines should have more money thrown at them or the research and development of them versus money being spent far more wisely on education campaigns promoting time-proven, risk-free ways to protect, maintain, and enhance health, on the immediate elimination of the use of known toxins in our food supply and environment, and for the healing of the vaccine-injured and supportive help for their families?

The vaccination paradigm is long overdue to be buried, forever. No time to waste. No more lives destroyed. No mincing of words.

Our demands to end this horrific Vaccine Holocaust must be clear:

No medical mandates, ever.
No more vaccines, period.


Leslie- again- I am a friend of JLW and on IPAK board. You write: :"James Lyons-Weiler wrote that, “Mandates without exemptions create a situation where those who are destined to be injured by vaccines will be found, and injured, with mathematical certainty” – a line of reasoning he’s employed before.

JLW is absolutely correct. It is mathematically certain that when vaccines are mandated, otherwise healthy kids will become sick and sometimes die. That is the grotesque manner in which the more vulnerable kids are identified.

If vaccines are not mandated, some families will opt out. The families that opt out will be spared having their kids identified as destined to be injured by vaccines.

Put another way, the current manner of identifying "those destined to be injured" is by injuring them. That is what I believe JLW trying to point out. Suggesting that he is in favor of vaccine mandates is simply not true.

In terms of public health vaccine policy- I submit we have made some major advances, thanks in part to the burgeoning numbers of blogs, films, books, and scientific data that has arisen in the wake of the disastrous CDC schedule. The hordes of sick kids have arrived, just as predicted.

Before Ted Kennedy died, he said his biggest regret of his political career was not accepting a compromise health care bill offered up by I believe President Reagan. Kennedy said that in hindsight, with regards to public health policy, half a loaf would have been better than no loaf.

No matter how much I might agree with you that all vaccines are poison in some way, I suggest that if people want to kill themselves slowly with tobacco, pot, alcohol, or vaccines, it is their business and not mine. I defend your right to refuse all vaccines as much as I defend (and hope) that people like DR feast on vaccines daily. It is their right to swallow the government claptrap and take the shots..

The position you espouse that all vaccines are dangerous, unproven, and ineffective imo is probably absolutely accurate. Are we more likely to repeal SB277 if we go in saying "all vaccines are poison" or "people have a right to informed medical consent in all situations including with vaccines?"

Which is a better political strategy?

Dr. Paul Thomas, and Dr. Bob Sears are both opposed to vaccine mandates. Yet both dispense vaccines. Both are in favor of informed medical consent with regards to vaccines.

Are you prepared to attack Dr. Bob and Dr. Paul because they dispense vaccines- or do you want them to be allies in our mutual battle to preserve informed medical consent?

The tent has to be big enough to be able to cause change. I want JLW, and Dr. Bob, and Dr. Paul, in our tent.

Shelley Tzorfas

No more Healthy Chicken Pox? Today there is a far worse illness in younger people called Shingles. Pertussis is combined with Diptheria and tetanus. A child cannot really get Tetanus unless they step on a rusty nail with dung bacteria and then the wound does Not bleed. Polio was related to the environment being poisoned with DDT and other factors. A Rabies shot is a remedy to possible rabies exposure, it is used as a Treatment. The childhood Diseases are "Illnesses," not diseases. Diseases last, like cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer's...where as Chicken pox is gone in a week or two and provides life long immunity and health. I don't think this is a forum to simply take up space.



I am very grateful for your unwavering uncompromising tenacious advocacy.

Ted Kuntz

Mandates under the present medical circumstances are abhorrent and immoral. They are the work of a greedy and dogmatic industry. From my understanding, vaccine mandates should only be considered if:

1) A disease has a high rate of mortality.
2) The disease is highly contagious.
3) The vaccine is proven to be safe.
4) The vaccine is effective in preventing transmission.

None of the current diseases and vaccines meets these criteria. Therefore, no mandates are required or moral.


This will always be a contentious point.
There is no safe vaccine.
We cant have pro safety vaccines-- because its all filled with toxins...

but there are those that think we can compromise.

We really cant...but there are those that think we can.

Antivaccine is the best thing thats ever happened to my family.
My sons vaccine injury saved my family from injury--especially to my 3 daughters who may have become victims of gardisal....
we are working to recover him from his injury, and we advocate that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine...

Hans Litten

And they wonder why Brexit was voted for.
Well I voted for Brexit because I knew the EU was rotten (vaccine rotten).
Just look at Macron, its all you need to know.

Leslie Manookian


I get that. I can understand that you didn't take it that way but the problem is the unwitting reader is gently, subtly, insidiously conditioned to accept that they are not in charge of their bodies with the term "mandates without exemptions."

Cia and John,

This IS a big deal because having mandates means school districts across America can take out advertisements in their local papers telling parents their state mandates vaccines - all do mandate vaccines, though most have exemptions - and uneducated parents believe they have no choice. In addition, state lawmakers believe vaccines are mandated. Everybody does - even though state law says you can get an exemption. But make no mistake, they all believe vaccines are MANDATED because the law says "IMMUNIZATIONS REQUIRED." Only if one reads on or digs deeper will one realize there are exemptions - and this is not advertised to the public.

I have fought this hard for the last 5 or 6 years in my home state of Idaho, where we have one of the best written laws in the nation. According to statute, a parent can exempt their child for any reason they choose as long as they submit a statement to the school that they are exempting their children. Yet despite this incredible legislation, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare created their own AAP inspired form which they've given to schools and told schools not to enroll children whose parents refuse to sign. This is of course illegal but do you think they care?? Of course not. Now if the LAW said vaccines are recommended, that would be entirely different, but it doesn't.

The starting point for our discussions must be that we are free. This means no mandates. Any language that does not reflect or imply that is dangerous in many ways. Jack could have simply condemned the NY Times for calling for mandates, but he didn't, he qualified it. So does he believe in freedom or not? Does he believe the state has the power and right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure of any kind? Only JLW can answer those questions.

Leslie Manookian


I posted the following comment on JLW's other post, linked to above, but I'm reposting it here as I have some different views from your assessment expressed here again. Here is my comment:


You argued that deaths in the 1800’s are justification for vaccines. I wanted to share a few items with you.

The following 3 quotes are from Guyer, et al’s Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century, published in Pediatrics in the year 2000.

“The major declines in child mortality that occurred in the first third of the 20th century have been attributable to a combination of improved socioeconomic conditions and the public health strategies to protect the health of Americans…health departments implements these public health measures including water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.”

“Once again, nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”

“Thus Vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century.”

The decline in mortality from diphtheria had very little, if anything, to do with the vaccine, which was not widely used till after WWII. This similar pattern holds true for other diseases such as measles, typhoid, TB, scarlet fever, influenza, whooping cough, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pneumonia. See charts at end of study at the link:

But that’s only mortality, so what about disease incidence?

According to US data found in “Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970,” the incidence of diphtheria per hundred thousand was as follows (for brevity, I’ve only provided the data point every 5 years beginning with the first year of the data set):

1912: 139
1917: 133
1922: 156
1927: 89.8
1932: 48
1937: 22.2
1942: 12.1
1947: 8.5

Polio, which saw mostly single digit levels per hundred thousand from the turn of the century for about 40 years, skyrocketed commensurate with the use of neurotoxic pesticides such as DDT and arsenic in the 1940s. These toxins either caused polio type symptoms or exacerbated polio but countries that never used the vaccine saw polio decline so we can’t credit the vaccine. In addition, given that there were only 3.75 cases per hundred thousand from 1012-1915 and through most decades till the 1940’s, one must ask what happened in the late 1940’s to cause such a jump to 28-37 cases per hundred thousand? Most importantly, contrary to your assertions, the change in diagnostic criteria had a huge impact on the numbers diagnosed before and after introduction of the vaccine but I won’t go into all that here.

The bottom line is roughly 90% of the decline in disease mortality occurred BEFORE the widespread use of vaccines. While disease incidence is not as clear-cut of a picture, in the case of diphtheria, which you mentioned, the declines were dramatic and preceded the wide spread use of the vaccine. In fact, between 1912 and 1947 disease incidence fell over 93% and that is NOT attributable to the vaccine.

Let’s be clear, as long as there is sewage in the streets, lack of clean drinking water and fresh food, crowded living conditions, and ignorance of basic hygiene, there is going to be abundant infectious disease. The answer to these problems, however, is NOT vaccination.

Lastly, in your comment you wrote that most people you know have gotten vaccines and are healthy but I have a hard time reconciling your statement with the fact that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get cancer in their lives, obesity/diabetes is at epidemic levels, ditto that for chronic disease, allergies, autoimmune disease, mental health, etc. The state of health of the average US adult is anything but healthy, though there are relatively healthier pockets, and there is clear science linking this epidemic of chronic illness to vaccination.

Given that we all know mercury, aluminum, and all the other adventitious ingredients in vaccines are poisonous to all, why would anyone defend them?

John Stone


I really did not take it in the spirit that you did - all I took Jack to be saying is that the whole thing is arbitrary, please don't make it worse. I am very mindful btw that we do not have any mandates in the UK, but we have very high compliance and are drowning in disability, chronic disease etc.


Hi, I am a friend of Dr. James as well as on the advisory board of IPAK.

This is the first thing I read by Jack:

I empathize with the good people on this forum who are of the view that vaccination is a gross, abhorrent horror. I disagree wholeheartedly that JLW is one of the "bad guys."

I view the vaccine schedule as an exercise in eugenics. We are unnaturally selecting for individuals that can resist the onslaught of childhood immunizations- in effect- breeding a "master race" of vaccine resistant super humans. The weak and sickly are mercilessly weeded out by the deliberate, indiscriminate, and weaponized misuse of vaccine technology.

I understand the anger expressed by Ms. Manookian. She in my view is one the heroes of the movement to out vaccines as dangerous, untested, and ineffective.

I believe that JLW and Ms. Manookian have more common ground and common beliefs regarding vaccination policy than opposed views.

cia parker

If there are personal exemptions to mandates, then they are not mandates. They ought to just call them recommendations and let it go at that.

Most vaccines are usually effective at preventing the targeted disease (except the flu and pertussis vaccines). That's why there's no more measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, or tetanus in the US, except for occasional small outbreaks. Most of those who get them don't seem to have any reaction to them, although with the huge number routinely given now, ever larger numbers ARE reacting with neurological or autoimmune disease. But if you walk around any park or school, there are dozens of kids around you fully vaxxed, walking, talking, laughing, socializing. Some of them have asthma or allergies, but most people don't connect those to the vaccines.

It's meaningless to point at a few people getting diseases they were vaccinated for and saying that that proves that vaccines don't work. No one has ever claimed a 100% effectiveness rate for any vaccine: most are around 90% effective. But it means that most vaxxed people are not going to get the disease even when they are exposed.

I think we should consider what we would recommend doing if some of the diseases came back and killed or disabled large numbers, or even small numbers, again. Once we saw descriptions of children dying of diphtheria or Hib disease, or tetanus, or crippled by polio, what would our recommendation be? Write them off to the Greater Good? Tell parents to consider a few vaccines? I think homeopathic prophylaxis would be a good alternative, but I don't think anyone knows how long that protection would last. It would be worth it to find out. I advocate giving parents all the relevant facts and then letting them choose. Right now we don't see many deaths from VPDs because nearly everyone has been vaxxed for them. But what's going to happen when there are many unvaxxed people? What would happen if polio came back, swept through communities, and left a small percentage of children exposed collapsed on the ground, never to walk again? And people said You SAID that polio never really crippled to start with. You SAID that the vaccine, all vaccines, were dangerous, but the diseases weren't. So what do you call THIS (holding up a disease-damaged baby in his arms)?

Mandates are wrong, and they skew the narrative. But sometimes it's worth voluntarily taking the risk of the vaccine in order to avoid the risk of the disease. What would you do if your six year old picked up a sick bat, like the little boy in Orlando last month? His parents didn't get him the rabies vaccine because he cried and was afraid of the shots. But then he got rabies, was put into an induced coma at the hospital, and died of rabies. If he had gotten the shots he would probably be alive today.

Leslie Manookian


The perspective I take on mandates is pretty black and white: you are either for or against them. If one refuses to condemn mandates for the unethical, immoral, coercive, tyrannical device they are, one is tacitly endorsing them.

JLW's statement "Mandates without exemptions" is totally wrongheaded and implies that mandates are perfectly fine as long as there are exemptions. Again, how's that working out in CA and other places? There should never, ever be a qualification on our freedom to choose what we put into our bodies. Never. Once we cede the philosophical and ethical precept that mandates are simply wrong, we've lost the battle. But this is the same insidious language that JLW continues to use and conditions readers to accept mandates.

There should be NO mandates, period. Mandates of any kind are indefensible, mandates of unproven, dangerous medical interventions like vaccines - especially by a "scientist" - are criminal in my opinion. JLW can choose other language if he genuinely is opposed to mandates, he doesn't have to say "Mandates without exemptions." Condemning vaccine mandates shouldn't be that tough of a stance to take - but for JLW it seems to be.

On many occasions in different discussion formats I have seen JLW use dangerous language and make the case for testing susceptible individuals. Again, this implies vaccines are perfectly safe for most folks. Something I feel is reckless and dishonest. Do you really believe that?

Laura Hayes

Leslie's last statement sums it up for me:

"The sooner our community starts calling out those who defend vaccines, vaccine mandates, and the practice of vaccination, the better."

Defending vaccines, for anyone, at any age, is wrong. Administering vaccines, for anyone, at any age, is wrong. Not one has been proven safe, effective, or needed, or been tested appropriately individually, or in the willy-nilly combinations in which they are routinely administered. Allowing their continued use is akin to the following scenarios I cited in my 2016 WAPF presentation ( ):

"Not demanding an immediate moratorium on vaccinations is no different than accepting any of the following scenarios:

We know that a particular brand of car has a history of blowing up, harming and killing people, but government regulators say it can stay on the market…and our Congress will indemnify the makers and sellers of that car so victims cannot sue.

We know that a particular brand of crib is causing thousands of babies to become trapped between the bars, leading to serious injuries and death, but government regulators say it can stay on the market…and our Congress will indemnify the makers and sellers of that crib so parents cannot sue.

We know that a particular brand of canola oil is making people violently ill, causing permanent brain damage, causing immune and nervous system damage, causing severe GI issues, and in some cases killing people, but government regulators say it can stay on the market…and our Congress will indemnify the makers and sellers of that canola oil so that those who consume it cannot sue.

We know that a particular medication has a history of inducing heart attacks, strokes, and aneurysms, resulting in disability, mental incapacitation, paralysis, and death, but government regulators say it can stay on the the market…and our Congress will indemnify those who make and administer that medication so that its recipients cannot sue."

Like Kathy Sincere and Leslie Manookian, I, too, commented when AoA ran JLW's article:

"I am greatly disappointed that AoA is condoning and promoting an article that includes the statement that only "a genetic minority of people...are susceptible to vaccine injury." Utter nonsense and dangerous propaganda, as is the author's other statement that "the majority who benefits from the suffering of a minority...". The majority of the vaccinated is not benefitting.

Furthermore, this author makes no call to immediately ban vaccine mandates. Rather, he uses the phrase "mandates without exemptions." No free or ethical society can have vaccine mandates, nor can there be the ethical medical practice of informed consent when mandates exist. A simple "no thank you" should always suffice when one wants to decline or refuse any medical treatment or procedure for oneself or one's child.

An article such as this implies that genetic pre-screening can be used to determine who will be harmed by vaccines. Readers, beware! Think through the implications and consequences of that...i.e. your child fails to qualify for an exemption based on their genetic screening test, and as a result is mandated to be poisoned via vaccination, resulting in trauma, acute and/or chronic illness, developmental disabilities, impairment of fertility, DNA damage, and premature death, including the possibility of immediate death.

Hugely disappointed to see this article referring to "a genetic minority" condoned and promoted on AoA while at the same time the vast majority of America's children and young adults is now living with the deleterious results of having been vaccinated."

At this time, we must not only doggedly fight for no mandates, we must fight to eliminate vaccines completely. Presently, there is no ethical, logical, reasonable, or defensible justification for their use.

Kathy Sincere

I commented on James Lyons-Weiler’s “New York Times Has Lost It”when it was published January 18. I tried to keep it civil despite my blood pressure rising. Thank you, Leslie Manookian, for articulating my thoughts on Mr. Weiler’s blog.

His solution to the massive amount of vaccine damage – autoimmune disease, autism, allergies, mood disorders (to name just a few that have personally affected my own children!) would be to test every pregnant woman, baby and child for potential markers. Markers that are defined by the medical community. The same medical community that cares so much about health. The same medical community that has been plotting and planning for 100% vaccine compliance. The same medical community that turns a blind eye to vaccine injury and will not admit they are killing babies, children and adults with their poison.

Our community here at AoA – people fighting for informed consent and medical freedom and medical Truth – can Never ever accept testing for medical markers as a rationale for mandates. Lines need to be drawn in the sand and they can never be crossed or compromised.

I lost my family to vaccine injury. I will never give up the fight against the Vaccine Holocaust. Compromises do not serve us well. We must continue the fight against mandates rather than finding an acceptable way to deal with them. There is NO ACCEPTABLE WAY to deal with tyranny and the medical mafia, NO WAY! I for one will go down fighting.

John Stone


The practical issue is of course that whatever initiatives are taken on a Federal basis there are brave people across the US who have to fight daily against mandates being extended in their local legislatures - almost none of them will be in favor of mandates in principle, but fighting against them being extended is not to concede that they are alright as they are.

There is also another point that people do not acknowledge. The argument for compulsion - if it had any logic at all - would be on the basis that there was some overwhelming body of knowledge supporting vaccine product infallibility. James is surely saying the project is wrong because the science is flawed, fragile, indiscriminate etc. And one invaluble thing he is doing is trying to address people who are not already convinced there is a problem, which is the only way we can make progress.

Patricia pratt

I agree absolutely John. James has said in other articles that he does not advocate mandates at all but he does advocate Freedom of Choice. He is for allowing exemptions if mandates are forced upon the population. And who knows.......the world is mad enough Although there is hope. Many good people out there fighting for freedom.

David Weiner

I agree with Leslie here. Now is not the time for half-measures. Not only must the mandates go, the vaccine propaganda must come to an end too. Because the sad truth is that many will get vaccinated even without mandates, because it seems like the prudent thing to do, based on the lies and fearmongering they are exposed to 24/7. When there is not informed consent, the transaction is in essence fraudulent.

John Stone


What I read from James Lyons-Weiler's blog is not that he favors mandates, but rather that he is pleading that if there are to be mandates (and no one is tabling Federal legislation to remove them, or is there presently any immediate prospect) that they be operated flexibly.


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.)