Vacillation Over Vaccines

No and I believe the public should not accept a vaccine that is 50% effective.

1). How do you test it on an individual bases infect them to see if it worked. Even if blood test are done and show that it worked. How long will immunity last?

2). Would lead to false sense of security of those inoculated that may lead to rapid spread of the disease. Because on some it didn't work.

If you had a vaccine only 50% effective, how the devil would you get FDA approval? They are required by law to show that vaccines are both effective and safe.

If you ever find any 100% vaccine, please contact Guiness. They'll want to put it in their record book.

Sorry, this was a very biased question.

Will someone give effectiveness in % for other vaccines like polio,measels,sars etc?

First you have to convince someone that 50% dead is better than 100% dead.

With an illness that strikes randomly there is reason to accept less than perfection in the effectiveness of a vaccine - say flu shots.

For AIDS where the point of infection is well known 50% would be useless.

Weather forecasters have been making careers out of 50% effectiveness forever.

@ lynlynch - You are a kind fellow to give the weather guessers so much credit!

If any one out there has any faith in FDA or Health Canada you had better get up to date on the facts. FDA is run by drug company hacks , former executives and lawyers for same and this accounts for the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to toxic drugs on the market such as Viox. Vaccines appear to be wonderful as they were when I was a child in the 50,s but the adjuvants and preservatives are toxic to be kind. Of course there is huge money in this industry and massive manipulation of officials and data. It appears none of it is to be trusted without dire consequences. Do your own research is is available and verifiable.

Sorry Roy I have done my own research. Your post is a bit of a fruitcake reply that only puts out the far left and/or far right garbage about the safety of vaccinations.

I used to see this on green sites all the time before I got tired of reading posts from the loonies.

Well I'm one of those many that do not view themselves at risk. I realize I could possibly get it through a bad blood transfusion. I am trusting the medical profession in their screening skills on that one I guess. I think developing a "cure" for the disease would be absolutely GREAT! I am not so sure developing a vaccination against the disease is the appropriate direction to take research. It might encourage a rise in inappropriate behaviour. That being said if vaccination is the only way to combat the disease than by all means pursue it. But don't be surprised by a huge negative backlash from the parents of this country when you try to line up their kiddies in public school to vaccinate them with the new vaccine for AIDS. I know I would violently object to the point of pulling my kid out of school and leaving the country if necessary. Also, 50% effectiveness is not acceptable. I mean you can achieve that right now through education and the use of condoms. Condoms are probably more than 50% effective. As for me I'm abstaining from any of that type of activity that would put me at risk.

It has been a long time since AIDS was the mark of the promiscuous homosexual, if it ever really was.

Get over it.

Any worker with the homeless, any trauma room physician, nurse or ambulance driver, pretty much anybody in the public health system, or a prison system, or educational system would welcome even a 50% lifeline.

Then they should take it - like hepatitis B. At lest that vaccination used to be reserved for certain high risk of exposure professions such as medical.

The general public is a different thing.

Why should the general public be excluded? Are they not worthy of being protected?

With any vaccination there are dangers that vary depending on the vaccine.

Everyone does not need vaccinated for everything - I believe that is accepted the world around.

If there is a significant risk then vaccinate - if not then don't.

Personally, I am not interested in an HIV vaccine and would not bother.

Which country would you consider leaving?

Just because the desease is sexually transmitted you believe that a vaccine is not the "appropriate direction to take research".

Do you realise that this sort of misplaced moral rectitude is responsible for many thousands of deaths around the world.

Condoms send the wrong message - ban them in the name of ...........

Vaccine - sends wrong message, let the heathen die in the name of .........

I hope you can live with yourself.

Agreed - but with various religious leaders taking the positions they do people get sucked in. Unable to think for themselves they just parrot the company (church) line.

One of the reasons I am a non-believer is the silly and non changing positions of different churches.

Yes.

Public resistance to any given vaccinations /inoculations can be drastically reduce if the pharmaceutical companies can instead refocus their main goals /objectives. Instead of being a business endeavor to a more scientifically oriented operation. That rather than having profits as the main goal and putting more emphasis on to product quality instead. Concentrating and focusing more on researching the efficacy with minimum harmful side effects will be more readily acceptable to the public. Instead of spending too much money to lobby and politicize, moneys that instead can be allocated to further continue the product research and development. Also, the public are very much aware that even on cases when certain government entities declare a pandemic condition, that vaccinations although been advised, are not enforceable and therefore has the option to turn the vaccination down.

The drug companies should not work for profits?

In that case there would be no new drugs - like most of the 3rd world today.

Drug companies should be monitored by governments and UN. There should be an agency similar to nuclear treaty or arms control. Third world countries will accept anything given free or for kick backs.

Monitored by the UN - I am afraid that anything monitored by the UN varies between a total disaster and worse - just reference the nuclear treaties or arms control.

I would rather the UN stays out of it.

The UN has successfully eradicated smallpox.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

By the way that was 30 years ago. The organization is too corrupt to justify the good they are doing now(IMHO).

What I meant was maximizing profits should not be their main goal. Product quality and efficacy with zero or minimum side effects to the consumer should the main goal instead of profit. Staying in business will be the effective outcome for the manufacturers since their product will be well accepted by the public.

Quality and profit are not conflicting goals in a free market. If you had ever visited the Soviet Union in its "prime" you would know that Socialism, by removing the profit motive, does not promote quality - rather the opposite.

What we have now in pharmaceuticals is a government-protected oligopoly which favors putting trash on the market because there is no effective market penalty for adverse effects. People are forced or deceived into taking drugs and vaccines and companies are protected from punishment for the harm done by toxic adjuvants and preservatives, not to mention the vaccines themselves (can you spell Guillain-Barré?).

Leave it up to the consumer and stop feeding him bullshit, and things will turn around in a hurry.

For now, though, you just have to research everything and believe nothing the government or pharma tell you. Having done that, you have to do your own risk-benefit analysis. If your lifestyle or livelihood put you at great risk, then you might need to accept a vaccine, however imperfect. If not...not.

I took a lot of flack when I refused to have my latest baby subjected to the MMR vaccine based on just that kind of risk-benefit analysis - dubious protection against three benign diseases vs. known risk from the vaccine itself - but I did let her be given the hepatitis vaccine because that disease is endemic to my home country in all its forms.

Of course, if pharma has its way, soon you won't have a choice in the USA or Canada - you will have to line up for shots or flee the continent.

Or start a revolution.

I do not know much about Canada, but here in the States, there is no Federal law (at least none yet) that can force anybody against his/her will to take any form of medication or vaccination, even when a government entity issued or declare a pandemic condition. If an individual does not want to be subjected to any of these drugs, all they need to be aware of is to request and fill up a waiver form. Although the form is not readily available, and instead being obligated to take the unwanted drug, they need to send certified letters to the pharmaceutical company, to the doctor, gov't agency that mandating the vaccination, etc., requesting drug certification, guaranteeing 100% efficacy without any harmful effect to your health and well being. I think at this point, even the military will issue the requested waiver to avoid future legal issues.

Is there a 100% efficacy for anything? (Except death and taxes) 100% is not a reasonable figure.

The average person has little or no understanding of the topic except for what they find on the net or their friends tell them which is usually wrong.

Exactly, you are correct in stating there is no such thing! That's the very reason why when asked for any certificate of efficacy or statement certifying drug effectiveness with no ill effects, No drug companies will or can abide with this type of consumers request. In situation like this, drug companies will prefer to issue you the requested waiver instead (spelling your rights of refusal to such medication) as to avoid their exposures from future lawsuits or litigations and other damage claims that may arise resulting from the use of their drugs! Sadly enough most consumers are ill advised and will just take the medication on their own volition, automatically accepting all legal responsibilities (both good and bad effects), as inherited from these drug companies.

"I do not know much about Canada, but here in the States, there is no Federal law (at least none yet) that can force anybody against his/her will to take any form of medication or vaccination, even when a government entity issued or declare a pandemic condition."

There should be!

Here are 144 articles why. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=36

I'm sorry but the site you referenced doesn't meet my standard for scientific reasoning and/or publications. The domain name "sounds" respectable but the content doesn't look it- looks like whining and name calling and propaganda to me, not science at all!

The suggestion that any member of the public should be forcibly drugged or vaccinated without his/her informed consent or that of the legal guardian is damn scary, coming from a fellow Canadian. The Charter of Rights is just a flimsy protection of the patient's right to be fully informed and to accept or reject a treatment, in the land where the government already has a monopoly on health care services and effectively sets the limit on what you will or will not get for your taxes.

Fully informed means knowing what adjuvants and preservatives are involved in the vaccines, and weighing the risks and benefits to make a decision. If information about the adjuvant is withheld - as in the recent pandemic flu vaccine from Glaxo - then I am not personally inclined to consent because I am not fully and adequately informed.

My own childhood vaccines and those of my child would have contained thimerosal - a mercury preservative which is now banned for use in childhood vaccines in North America, not for hysterical reasons but for well reasoned medical concerns. Thimerosal is still used in childhood vaccines in third world countries, however. And it is still used in North America in, for example, seasonal flu vaccines.

It is up to the individual to decide whether he/she or his/her child should accept the risk of mercury exposure in vaccines. The risk/benefit analysis would be best informed if we were able to test and assess the existing mercury load on the individual. This service is not available through Health Canada,(environmental health testing is limited to a test for high levels of lead, afaik). With or without this data, an individual adult may weigh the personal risks in consideration of his/her known history of mercury exposure, a pre-existing kidney condition, or any neurological condition that might be worsened by the mercury exposure, for example. We cannot assume that the risks are the same for everyone. Should the government decide for you that you must take the risk, irrespective of your personal basis for evaluating that risk? Surely not!!

You make a sound reasonable argument against anyone forcing you to vaccinate your children. All right you may refuse.

However the government's primary duty is to protect me and my children. So you are hereby instructed to keep your unvaccinated children indoors at all times so that they will not come in contact with anyone else's children and endanger them.

You people talk as if things can be proven 100%. Nothing works that way. Yes today vaccines are better than yesterdays but they are not perfect. Tomorrows will be even better, but still not perfect. Show me one product in this world that is proven to be 100% safe. Yet you eat the food, drink the water, breathe the air? None of those are beyond suspicion.

Yes i'm a Canadian, that is the country where the unvaccinated in BC led to this headline.

Oh please. Don't start with the bogus speculation about my personal decisions about vaccines! Everyone in my family is vaccinated against the measles and more. And furthermore, we don't fear the "unclean unvaccinated" precisely BECAUSE we are vaccinated; we're immune for crapsake and so are your children of course. Call in the troops and lock up the unvaccinated eh.... complete nonsense. I sure hope the risks and rewards of vaccination are understood by the minister of national defense and health enforcement!

The only people who suffered (or whose children suffered) measles in BC were the ones who took the risk of passing up a free government approved vaccination against a nasty disease. No vaccinated persons were put at risk.

The benefit of a vaccine is easy to understand, especially to protect children from potentially dangerous diseases. The risk from adjuvants or preservatives isn't very well quantified but still a small risk for most people compared to the benefit to the child, UNLESS there is a special reason to fear adverse effects, because of genetic predispositions, pre-existing conditions etc etc. You cannot give the government the right to make or enforce health care decisions for people who are informed and able to reason. The government can/should only INFORM fully of the general and specific indications, ADVISE or COUNSEL about the decision, and the individual (or parent) must then decide. If the adjuvant/preservative is so worrisome that large numbers refuse to vaccinate their children, the government should follow through by refusing the product on the public behalf, and get the industry to pony up with a safer vaccine.

As for seasonal flu shots, I see no reason for myself to have it, and I'm not telling you (or anyone else) what to do, so whatever you decide, hope it works out for you.

"I do not know much about Canada, but here in the States, there is no Federal law (at least none yet) that can force anybody against his/her will to take any form of medication or vaccination, even when a government entity issued or declare a pandemic condition."

If you have the time, I would like to know more about the challenge and waiver procedure that you mentioned. My family and I live in a country where you can still "just say no" as long as you don't work for the government, but I know that in the USA and Canada health care workers and even students are routinely coerced into taking flu shots which have been proven ineffective over and over again. I like the idea of demanding 100% assurance in writing - a perfect means of using lawyers in a GOOD cause, for a change.

Here it is.... From an article published by Dr. Mercola

How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

1. Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with "assault with a deadly weapon" and have the full resources of our laws behind you.

2. At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing them. Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them. The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2 All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment. How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages. Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law. However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, "Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger." Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.

Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3 While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

1. Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on religious or medical grounds or both.

2. You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4 There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions.

We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.

In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall.

The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are "the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child" and "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.

It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

Article 5 The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide "immunization waivers." Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions, you become responsible if you react. When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you. If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 5: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding, the facts of the law.

Article 6 What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination? The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the "go" (at his discretion).

Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots - so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, "No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical."

Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.

Some Important Details The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are many important little "tricks of the trade" to having your legal requests honored. These will now be discussed. While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization, most public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are loathe to discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge, volunteer such information. A top Philadelphia school official was on the radio with the unequivocal statement, "NO SHOTS, NO SCHOOL." This statement is of course completely counter to state law, with which presumably he is familiar. Such unwarranted dogmatism is common in the people you will encounter. Once the end of their legitimate authority has been reached, they will use their next most powerful weapon - INTIMIDATION. They will threaten to keep your child out of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. These are all idle threats because they can do none of these thing, if you follow our simple instructions.

The basic rules have been given to you, but there are a few important details to be considered if the officials start on this course of unlawful intimidation.

1. You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of your stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor, minister, or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized, it could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a possibility of legal action against you.

2. If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give you a statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won't, their refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your child. If they do (they rarely will) they take the risk of incriminating themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what is specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they are on tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, you are not their servant. If worst comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for refusal, he will also in a negative way tell you what the accepted exemptions are, and then you can go about meeting them, by one of the routes suggested in this handout.

3. Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No legal parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete lack of concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this simply means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have come to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your children immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but only because you were too concerned with other matters.

4. At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn legal consent. Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both the advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other words, if a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and effective to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and you have not been properly informed. Conversely, it could be argued that non-consent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations.

5. What do I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?

This would be an extremely rare circumstance. But should it happen, you are not left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns.

Send notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes the shot (ask your doctor for the address), to the doctor who is to administer the shot, to your school principal,to the school board, and to your local health department.

In these letters make it clear that since they have refused to give you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what may happen to your child if they force these shots upon him. You then state that you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will consent to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your child may develop from the required shots. Of course none will give you such a guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered potentially highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of parents after such letters have been sent.

That's about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your children. All that has been said in this last section (1 to 5) is also applicable to the military and international travel, if required.

Potpourri of Ammunition

"As long as each individual who opposes vaccines has sincere objections, states them in writing, and signs his name - it is considered legal and proper action and must therefore be honored."

"Since many medical controversies exist surrounding immunization, drugs, and various other medications, it mandates that each individual have the right to control his own decisions and freedom of choice; anything less would be contrary to the constitutional laws that protect the citizens' rights. "

"When you deal with school officials and lawyers, you are playing with legal terminology - move the wrong words around and you get hung." The terminology used in this booklet has worked before and should work again.

"It is important to state your objections in such a way that it complies with your state's exemption provisions. They must then accept your request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law." That is why it is absolutely essential that you know your own state law word for word before submitting your objection.

"According to CDC (the federal Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the risks involved before they consent to vaccines." If they do not do so, it is prima facie evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician.

This regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the patient has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If this is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory immunization?

Should you ever have to go to court, or what is more likely, to appear before a "kangaroo" court of school and health department officials, here is some class A evidence you might find useful to mention.

• No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it. •

The U.S. military allows no-nonsense "immunizations waivers." •

There is NO FEDERAL LAW on immunizations. They don't dare. Their lawyers know the consequences. •

Your rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use force against your will.

Most state officials like a nice, stress-free job. When you send in your objections and refuse to fit their ordered world by not having your children immunized, you make waves.

This rocks their quiet existence, and there are only two ways their life can become orderly again: either by forcing you to their will or acquiescing to yours. What you must do to obtain an early waiver is to make the latter the easiest path for them. At first, however, an attempt will usually be made to bend you to their will by some form of intimidation. Many uninformed parents give in to this tack, and so it is tried again and again.

If you are adequately informed, you will let the officials know in no uncertain terms that you understand your rights under the law and will not stand for any such shilly-shallying. Invariably, once they discover you are adamant and acquainted with the state law, your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.

An Acknowledgment The greatest part of the material on the first four pages is taken from the work of Mrs. Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois. Our staff has rearranged and edited the information, but we wish the full credit for its existence to go to this courageous woman who has for twelve years worked arduously, without compensation, to help her fellow Americans obtain their legal rights. The following is an example of the state of Illionois law (where I live) relating to immunizations. Illinois, like most states has no philosophical objection, but does have a religious one. Illinois Administrative Code Title 77: Public Health Chapter I: Department of Public Health Subchapter i: Maternal and Child Health Part 665 Child Health Examination Code Subpart E: Exceptions Section 665.510 Objection of Parent or Legal Guardian Parent or legal guardian of a student may object to health examinations, immunizations, vision, and hearing screening tests, and dental health examinations for their children on religious grounds. If a religious objection is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian detailing such objections must be presented to the local school authority. General philosophical or moral reluctance to allow physical examinations, immunizations, vision and hearing screening, and dental examinations will not provide a sufficient basis for an exception to statutory requirements. The parent or legal guardian must be informed by the local school authority of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures per IDPH rules. The Control of Communicable Diseases (77 Ill. Adm. Code 690) at the time such objection is presented. Section 665.520 Medical Objections a) Any medical objections to an immunization must be: 1) Made by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches indicating what the medical condition is. 2) Endorsed and signed by the physician on the certificate of child health examination and placed on file in the child's permanent record. b) Should the condition of the child later permit immunization, this requirement will then have to be met. Parents or legal guardians must be informed of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures when such objection is presented per Section 665.510.

Vsar, The approach you have posted is a very good primer to dealing with bureaucrats of all types.

you always have to stay in front of the situation

in essence you must do their jobs for them

never be afraid to give them credit for your hard work

I believe at issue here is not just about the vaccine per se, but rather the mixing of several types of vaccines, creating an All-in-One type of vaccines for babies. Which may have been causing some unwanted bad effects on patients.

The point I'm driving at is for the public to be more knowledgeable on this issues and to raise their awareness on the bad side effects of this type of vaccinations!

As an added information regarding An article written by Barbara Loe Fisher to assist us understand who ultimately is and will be responsible and to raise public awareness..

There are three basic facts you should remember when you are exercising your right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice for yourself or your child in America:

Informed Consent is a Human Right: The right to voluntary, informed consent to a medical intervention, including use of a pharmaceutical product such as a vaccine that can injure or kill you or your child, is a human right.

While the State may have the legal authority to mandate use of vaccines, nobody has the moral authority to FORCE you to get vaccinated or vaccinate your child without your voluntary, informed consent

Vaccine Laws Have Exemptions: In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the legal authority of state governments to pass laws requiring citizens residing in the state to use certain vaccines.

Today, all 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof of vaccination for children to attend daycare, elementary, junior and high school and college.

Vaccine requirements vary from state to state and all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination; 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

Freedom is Not Free, Become a Vaccine Choice Advocate: Many state governments now require nearly three dozen doses of more than a dozen vaccines to attend school. Medical and religious exemptions are becoming harder to get and exemptions for reasons of conscience are under attack by proponents of forced vaccination.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens in states to expand or protect legal exemptions to vaccination.

Six Principles for Protecting Vaccine Choices

First Principle: It's Your CHOICE

When exercising your right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination for yourself or your child, remember that state vaccine laws contain:

Legal requirements that school and health officials are responsible for enforcing

Legal exemptions that you have the legal right to choose to exercise. (Public schools must allow vaccine exemptions outlined in state vaccine laws, but private religious or other non-state operated schools may reject vaccine exemptions.)

Most state vaccine laws do not allow unvaccinated students with vaccine exemptions to attend school during confirmed outbreaks of certain infectious diseases for defined periods of time.

Remember: Nobody has the moral authority to force you or your child to be injected with a vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent and you have the legal right to exercise exemptions to vaccination according to the laws in your state.

Second Principle: You Have the Right to KNOW

You have the legal right to know the risks and complications of vaccines BEFORE you make the choice of whether or not to allow your child to be vaccinated.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1986, directed all doctors and other vaccine providers to give parents written information about vaccines BEFORE children are vaccinated.

Remember: All vaccines and other pharmaceutical products carry a risk of injury or death and those risks can be greater for some than others.

Never agree to use a vaccine, drug or other product without fully informing yourself about ALL risks.

The product information insert, which drug companies by law must include with every vial of vaccine provided to public health clinics and private doctors' offices, includes a description of the vaccine's reported reactions and precautions.

You can ask for a copy of that vaccine information insert from your doctor or state health department.

Third Principle: Be INFORMED and Prepared

Knowledge is power. Arm yourself with accurate information about vaccination and health. Do your own research and talk to one or more trusted health care professionals before you make any health care decision.

Become an educated consumer and you will be empowered to defend your right to freely make voluntary choices about health, including vaccination, for yourself and your children.

Remember: If you arm yourself with accurate information about vaccines and health, you will be prepared to intelligently and rationally discuss your vaccine choices with your family, friends, colleagues, doctors, elected officials and others in your community.

Fourth Principle: Take RESPONSIBILITY for Your Words and Actions

When you are standing up for your right to know, and freedom to choose, whether or not to vaccinate yourself or your child, how you go about exercising your rights will determine whether or not you will succeed.

In your contact with doctors, school or government health officials, remain calm but politely firm when explaining and defending the vaccine choice you have made.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor or government official, do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened.

To publicly post a report of harassment for your vaccine choice, click here.

Remember: Treat others as you want to be treated, even if you are being attacked or harassed for the vaccine choice you have made.

Protect yourself and your family by seeking legal or other expert counsel, if necessary.

Serve as an example for others in your community whenever you defend your right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination, including the right to decline to use one or more vaccines for yourself or your child.

Fifth Principle: Keep WRITTEN Records

Be sure to ask your doctor for copies of your medical records or your child's medical records, including recorded information about vaccinations and illnesses. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, doctors and other vaccine providers are required by federal law to:

Write down any serious health problems that occur after vaccination in a child's permanent medical record

Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given, including the manufacturer's name and lot number

Report serious health problems, hospitalizations injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). (If your doctor won't report, you have the right to make a vaccine reaction report to VAERS).

Remember: It is wise to keep written records of your interactions with doctors, school and health officials that involve vaccine choices you make, as well as copies of any vaccine exemptions you file with the state. You may have to hire an attorney to defend your informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination and it is important to have written records.

Sixth Principle: Be COURAGEOUS

It is not easy to stand up for the right to make informed, voluntary choices about vaccination when public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry and many medical doctors are putting pressure on all Americans, especially parents, to use every government recommended vaccine.

The fact that the numbers of doses of government mandated vaccines have tripled in the past quarter century, while the numbers of chronically ill and disabled children have also tripled, offers an opportunity to have a long overdue public conversation about the effects of vaccination on individual and public health.

Remember: Freedom of thought and exercise of free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution.

You have the right to talk privately and publicly about any concerns you have about vaccine necessity, safety and effectiveness, and to work with your elected officials to modify the vaccine laws in your state.

Become an engaged, courageous citizen activist and protect your right to make vaccine choices.

Vaccination and U.S. Law: A Brief Summary

Medical Exemptions: All 50 states allow medical exemption to vaccination.

Medical exemptions to vaccination must be written by a medical doctor (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathy (D.O.) and are usually reviewed annually by school or state health officials.

Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have eliminated most officially recognized medical reasons for withholding vaccination (contraindications) so that almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination.

In most states, school or state public health officials can question or even deny a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor if it does not strictly conform to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens who want to change vaccine laws to prevent state school or health officials from questioning or denying a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor.

Religious Exemptions: All but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi) allow religious exemption to vaccination.

These exemptions are worded differently in different states and require different forms of written documentation that must be submitted to state governments supporting a sincerely held religious belief opposing vaccination.

Some states require a notarized affidavit or letter from a spiritual advisor attesting to the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs about vaccination. The religious exemption is under attack and, in some states like New York, parents are being grilled about the sincerity of their religious beliefs by state officials and denied religious exemptions to vaccination so their partially or completely unvaccinated children cannot attend public schools.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens, who want to protect their rights to religious exemptions, to add or re-write the religious exemption in state vaccine laws.

Conscientious Belief Exemptions: 18 states allow conscientious, personal or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination. These states come the closest to protecting a citizen's right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America. They are:

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin

This exemption, like the religious exemption, is under attack by forced vaccination proponents who want to eliminate non-medical exemptions to vaccination in America.

The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens who want to protect or add conscientious belief exemption in state vaccine laws.

Vaccine Exemptions for Military Personnel: All branches of the U.S. Armed Services provide medical and religious exemptions to vaccination, but those exemptions must be first declared before enlistment in the military.

If a military recruit does not clearly state a medical or religious objection to vaccination BEFORE joining the military, he or she gives up the right to object to vaccination during active military service. Failure to obey an order to vaccinate while on active military duty can result in demotion, imprisonment and involuntary discharge from the military, including dishonorable discharge.

After enlistment, legal assistance is often required to successfully object to vaccination without being subjected to sanctions.

Family dependents of active military personnel often must obtain approval from military officials to exempt children from vaccination for medical reasons or religious objections, especially if the children are attending military-operated daycare or schools or are deployed to foreign countries or re-entering the U.S. after living in a foreign country.

Vaccine Exemptions for International Travel: Different countries have different laws requiring vaccines to enter or leave the country.

Most developed countries, including those in Europe, currently do not require visitors to show proof of vaccination. However, some countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere may require certain vaccines to enter or exit. Click here to check the CDC website on travel vaccine requirements.

Other Vaccine Exemption Issues: Vaccine choices also can affect adoption, immigration, child custody arrangements during divorce proceedings, eligibility for health insurance and government entitlement programs, and medical care.

Children adopted from foreign countries as well as in the U.S. may be required by US law and adoption agencies to receive certain government mandated vaccines.

Immigration laws also contain vaccine requirement provisions.

In cases of divorce, one parent may attempt to gain full custody of a minor child by using the vaccine choice issue as leverage.

Some families have been dropped from medical insurance plans or barred from eligibility for government funded medical care and food supplement programs if children are not given all government recommended vaccines.

Increasingly, pediatricians are refusing to treat children who are not fully vaccinated and, in some instances, medical personnel in hospital emergency rooms and physicians' offices have reported parents to state child social services agencies for child medical neglect for refusing to vaccinate their children. In these circumstances, you may need to consult to protect informed consent rights.

Legal Options

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed by Congress to protect vaccine manufacturers and vaccine providers from liability for vaccine injuries and deaths in civil court.

If a child is injured by a government recommended or mandated vaccine, the child must sue the Secretary of Health for damages under the Act in the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington, D.C.

If the vaccine injured child is turned down for federal compensation or offered too little to provide for the child's lifetime care, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court against a vaccine manufacturer or negligent doctor with certain restrictions.

By 2009, about $2 billion had been awarded to vaccine victims for brain inflammation and immune system damage leading to permanent injury or death, even though two out of three children are turned away for federal compensation.

The Bottom Line

When you or your child is injured by a vaccine, the risks are 100 percent, and you will be left to deal with the consequences. Those who make and give vaccines are protected from liability in civil court, and federal vaccine injury compensation is very difficult to get.

There is no guarantee that a vaccine will, in fact, protect against an infectious disease or that exposure to an infectious disease will cause a complication, injury or death. Good health is about so much more than vaccination and preventing experience with infectious disease.

Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death that is greater for some than others. The right to informed consent to medical risk-taking is a human right. Empowering ourselves with information and taking responsible action to protect the right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America is one of the most important actions we can take as citizens to protect our freedom.

Don't let anyone force you or your child to take a vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent.

If a doctor denies you or your child medical care because you want to make vaccine choices, find another doctor.

If a doctor threatens you, or if a government official denies a medical or religious exemption that you have legally filed, find an attorney to help you.

If you don't like the vaccine laws in your state, contact your elected officials and work to change them.

Together, we can educate the public and reform vaccine laws in America to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions for ourselves and our children.

For More Information ...

Diseases & Vaccines -- A list of diseases that have vaccines, selected stories about the diseases and the vaccines, and other links to find information about them.

Vaccine Manufacturers' Product Inserts

State Laws & Vaccine Exemption Information

Become a Vaccine Choice Advocate in your state to protect vaccine exemptions

If you have been harassed for your vaccine choices, make a report here

About the Author Barbara Loe Fisher is the co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, and the author of "The Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines" and "Vaccines, Autism & Chronic Inflammation: The New Epidemic."

Founding NVIC in 1982 with parents of vaccine injured children, she developed strategy for and led a national, grassroots movement and public information campaign to institute vaccine safety reforms and informed consent protections in the public health system.

Her book, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, which she co-authored with Harris Coulter, Ph.D., was the first major, well documented critique of America's mass vaccination system calling for safety reforms and the right to informed consent to vaccination.

She has served as a consumer representative for more than 15 years on vaccine advisory committees and has testified in state legislatures and in Congress, as well as represented consumers in many scientific and other forums as an advocate for vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system.

She is a consumer voice for vaccine safety and informed consent issues on radio, television and in print and Internet news reports on the science, regulation, policy, and ethics of vaccine policy and law. During the past three decades, she has debated more pediatricians and U.S. public health officials on the subject of vaccine risks and informed consent on television, radio and in other public forums than any other American.

here's a link to NVIC

if you have a better source of information, let us know.

I don't see anything [data] particularly compelling in support of the view the vaccines are a unacceptable health risk.

Since we as "humans" as we labeled ourselves presently are still very much in limbo as far as our very own well being is in question?, then a lot of "maybe yes / maybe no" may just be the best answer anyone within reason can give, which will solely depend on his/her own experiences, knowledge base or perspective!

For me, it should be a learning process for everybody, and that is what I'm driving at! One must not just accept anything shove into us and because they say so! Since our well being in general is a very complex, evolving chemical reactions or processes, and while the field of medicine not being an exact science, present developments are still and can be considered to be in its infancy, an ongoing experimental stages.

p

Thank you for that link. My impression is that this site seems to deal in facts. Cherry picked facts, but facts nonetheless. Very refreshing! I thought that their treatment of Dr. Offit was a little unfair in that they picked pretty small errors, digressions and oversimplifications to back up their assertion that he is a liar, but smart people can decide for themselves if they want to throw out the baby with its bath water. (Offit is their biggest competitor, so some understandable bias is to be expected! Some sites have Dr. Offit growing a tail and burnishing his devilish horns, this was actually quite subdued!) And I note that they kind of gloss over the whole autism-Wakefield lie. In fact, they don't even mention it in the "myths" section, and where it IS mentioned, they tend to choose news reports and interviews which are remarkably supportive of him and his BS. The contrast between their treatment of Offit and Wakefield is VERY interesting, and to my jaundiced eye, a little suspect, but again, they really do seem to (by and large) deal with facts.

Side effects seem to be the big issue on that site, more so than say, the effectivity of any vaccines. I am not sure why. I would have thought a site that was willing to spend page after page discussing the merits of the court procedures of a lying bozo like Andrew Wakefield would have at least be prepared to make some sort of statement about the value of an MMR vaccine, but they simply don't. What they do is list the side effects (uniformly bad) without bothering to list the up side. And this is from a site which advertises itself as a "disease information site, and bills itself as a "vaccine information center." Hmmm. Makes ME think. And thinking is always a plus!

Side effects. Ah well. That's the issue isn't it?

It is helpful to realize that ANY medicine has side effects. All medical procedures carry risk. Any surgery, for instance, may kill you, even a minor one, say, if you react to the anesthetic in an adverse way. I can give a hundred other examples, but again, people by and large are smart enough to know that ANYTHING you put into your body will have a reaction of some sort, possibly an adverse one! Doesn't stop them for ordering extra sausage on their pizza! The only question therefore,is the risk versus benefits consideration. When 5 percent of the kids in the world were dying of childhood diseases, some failures were acceptable. Now, the medical community is chipping away at those failures. A bit at a time. There are success stories. They don't seem to make the news though!

(I hate to be an apologist for big pharma, but honestly, who else is gonna do it? That's not a rhetorical question! Big government?)

When did we start demanding a 100% guarantee on safety of anything? After I send this post, I shall be going for a motorcyle ride. I will be making a risk assessment. The tires are pretty good, but they ARE two years old, and likely going to need to be changed before they start to show sidewall cracks. I think I'll wait until spring, and get this last couple of weeks before the snow flies of riding in on the old tires. Risk versus benefits.... same consideration that bozo made as he passed me on a double solid line last week. And this fall, I'll be going for a seasonal flue vaccine because I want to visit my uncle and auntie in the nursing home, and I would hate to carry THAT into the facility! Risk versus benefits.

Again, good find. Very instructive.

In the Philipines you refused your child an MMR - amazing. I pray that you do not live to regret this terrible decision. Have you taken into account that by making it you may put other peoples children at risk?

In the Philippines? I think majority of our present problems started when drug companies started mixing drugs that are otherwise were supposed to be individually administered and within a given intervals during their childhoods!! When they developed a one-single-shot for all the different types of vaccines, is when all these unwanted side effects surfaced! I believe an exhaustive research on the side effects of intermixing different chemicals should have prevailed over the desires to maximize profits! By the way in the Philippines, I also had my kids inoculated with all the required vaccinations, but each type of vaccines were given individually by their pediatricians. Now they are all grown ups and healthy, thank God for that.

I'm sorry, I forgot to login and so doing I was labeled as guest. Thanks, VSAR

Honestly I agree with you completely. Medicine is not the place for corporate motives. It should be a calling to relieve suffering for the benefit of humankind, not a way to maximize the profit from the disease and dependencies of the public served.

My granddaughters have had all their shots - my daughter is a nurse.

I think it is irresponsible not to vaccinate kids. What happens to your own is your business but what they may spread to others is everyone's business.

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you unconditionally. My parents practiced what you preach. But it's a different world now - one in which companies and government procure billions of dollars worth of vaccine for a non-event, despite the fact that the vaccine is already proven ineffective and dangerous years before. It's a world in which seasonal flu shots are foisted on the young and old, even though study after study shows no benefit and some harm. Add in adjuvants and toxic preservatives, stir in new diseases originating IN vaccines (not making this up), and... now you had better be a very discriminating patient and parent. You can't just queue up and roll up your sleeve because THEY say so.

"despite the fact that the vaccine is already proven ineffective and dangerous years before"

Please provide source.

"study after study shows no benefit and some harm."

What studies?

"stir in new diseases originating IN vaccines (not making this up)"

Please tell us who did make this up?

"You can't just queue up and roll up your sleeve because THEY say so."

Who is THEY?

If you read any green sites they have this type of comments all the time.

There is no rhyme or reason just the rumors that some people like to believe. A problem of the net is that it is so easy for parties to publish bad information and use the fact that it is on the net to try to make it true.

Some still support the quack doctor from the UK (who jerked his license I believe) who had made up studies to support the dangers of childhood immunization. If I remember right I think I read the clown is in the US now.

Dr Andrew Wakefield claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and the incidence of autism.

And it should be noted here that the Lancet, the British medical journal, later pulled the article where Mr. Wakefield made that claim. 10 of the 13 doctors who participated in the study retracted their findings. But the damage was already done.

Mr. Wakefield does not hold a US medical license and has had his Bristish license pulled. His studies basically amounted to torture of the sick children he "treated" and he has been completely discredited.

Blind faith in big pharma's push for mass vaccines is naive.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126983.400-bird-flu-mixup-could-have-spelled-disaster.html

July 27, 2010 Salem, Massachusetts By Nancy Witting --- Harmful Ingredients Immunization Successes and Failures Precautions You Can Take --- Is a pound of prevention worth an ounce of cure? Contributing Editor Nancy Witting believes there may be a link between the increase in childhood vaccinations and the rise in childhood health problems. Today she explores the possible link between kids' health and the shots they receive as youngsters. Alarming Numbers U.S. children are the most highly vaccinated children in the world, yet the numbers of chronically ill and disabled kids are on the rise. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccines, cites these disturbing statistics: • In 1976, 796,000 children were learning disabled. Today, one child in six is learning disabled. • In 1979, there were two million asthmatic children. Today, one child in nine has asthma. • In 1970, one child in 2,500 developed autism. Today, one child in 150 develops autism. • In 1970, one child in 1,750 was diabetic. Today, one child in 450 becomes diabetic. Look at those dates, and then consider these facts: • In the 1970s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advised that children get 23 doses of seven vaccines by the age of six. The first vaccinations were given to infants at two months old. • Today, the CDC and the AAP recommend that children get 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age six. The first vaccination is given to newborns when they are 12 hours old. When babies are two months old, they may be given as many as eight vaccines on a single day. When they are 15 to 18 months old, they may be given as many as 12 vaccines on a single day. Could it be that early manipulation of the immune system with more and more vaccines is setting significant numbers of children up for chronic disease and disability? Would fewer immunizations be better? There are no easy answers to these questions; there are far too many other variables involved, including diet, exercise, television viewing and radiation. But being better informed can help you protect your children. Harmful Ingredients The NVIC points with suspicion to a long list of potentially harmful ingredients that are present in trace or larger amounts, depending on the specific vaccine. The list includes lab-altered viruses and bacteria, aluminum (associated with asthma, seizure disorders and cognitive dysfunction), mercury, formaldehyde and 2-phenoxyethanol (both known carcinogens), gluteraldehyde, sodium borate, sodium chloride, sodium acetate, monosodium glutamate (associated with neurological effects), hydrochloric acid, hydrogen peroxide, lactose, gelatin, yeast protein, egg albumin, bovine and human serum albumin, antibiotics and unidentified contaminants. Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, was removed from most childhood vaccines in 2001. For many years, parents of autistic children have believed that it was thimerosal in vaccines (particularly the MMR vaccine) that precipitated autism in their children. The CDC maintains that there is no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, and it is still used in flu shots, tetanus boosters, the hepatitis B vaccine and the meningitis vaccine, to name a few. Immunization Successes and Failures There's no question that vaccines have dramatically decreased the incidence of illness and death from certain infectious diseases. Smallpox has been virtually eliminated from the world and paralytic polio from the Western Hemisphere. Tetanus and diphtheria occur only rarely, and the incidence of mumps, pertussis and measles is steadily decreasing. But vaccines provide only temporary immunity to a targeted disease, so boosters are often required to extend the immunity. And vaccines are not 100% effective—for some individuals, no immunity is conferred. The immunity produced after natural infection generally lasts longer, often for a lifetime. And then there's the problem of side effects. While the CDC and other public health officials in the U.S. acknowledge that reactions to vaccinations—even fatal ones—can and do occur, they nonetheless justify mass vaccination for the benefit of the nation's health. They state that the small amounts of chemical and other additives in vaccines cause no harm in the absence of allergies, and that these additives are necessary to ensure the potency, sterility, and safety of vaccines. Co-founders of the NVIC worked with Congress on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a law that acknowledges the suffering of the vaccine-injured and their families and the need for vaccine-safety protections in the mass vaccination system. As of 2008, $1.8 billion dollars had been awarded to more than 2,200 vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, out of some 12,000 applicants. The 1986 law also requires that vaccine providers report serious health problems following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Since the government inaugurated this system in 1990, the number of entries has steadily climbed: from fewer than 2,000 in 1990 to over 30,000 in 2009. Precautions You Can Take You can minimize the risk of adverse vaccine reactions in your children by finding a sympathetic doctor and following some simple guidelines. If at all possible, delay vaccinations until your child is six months old. Request single rather than combination shots, and allow two months between each shot. Never vaccinate a sick child. If your child has an adverse reaction to a shot, wait at least one year to vaccinate again. Some vaccinations on the CDC immunization schedule might be skipped altogether. For example, chickenpox is usually a mild disease in young children, and lasts only about seven days. It might be preferable for your child to be exposed to another child with chickenpox and contract it, rather than get the shot. Hepatitis B is a disease spread through sex and drug use, so it is reasonable not to give the vaccination to infants and young children. Be alert for signs and symptoms of vaccine reactions in your child: • High fever (over 103° F) • Skin reactions (hives, rashes, swelling) • High-pitched screaming • Collapse/shock • Excessive sleepiness • Convulsion • Brain inflammation (loss of consciousness) • Behavior changes • Mental/physical regression Vaccine reactions should be reported to VAERS by calling 800-822-7967 and to NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry at www.NVIC.org. Know Your Rights

Some good points in Witting's article and some that are more questionable.

Often the comparisons between today and history are greatly affected by reporting. Years back people died of 'natural causes' - now everything has a cause.

More child diabetics? Also a lot more fat kids.

Learning disabled? When I was in school (50's & 60's) that term was used for very few. Now you have specialists searching out kids and they find many - surprise.

When I was in school, if you messed up you might meet with the board of education which was a paddle. The teacher had to go claim it from the principal's office to give him time to think. That encouraged not screwing up in class!

The definition and search for autism has gone wild over the years. The comparisons are meaningless.

I believe that hepatitis B is spread by blood - medical professionals and others routinely receive the shots. Spreading by sex and drug use I don't care about - those affected can take care of themselves in the event they wish to.

Can and should the pharma business group, doctors and the government do better? Yes they should and can.

Many of the lawsuits and payouts are shyster lawyers chasing the drug companies - right or wrong or what really happened the lawyer could care less about. Tort reform to do away with the big payouts (at least to lawyers) would help this point.

If there were criminal penalties for for individuals for the nasty things sometimes done rather than civil penalties for the company I believe they would be a lot more honest. There is a big, big difference between the company paying out a few hundred million and personal jail time.

Not going to read through all this but here are a few pointers.

Who is Nancy Witting and why should I take medical or scientific advice from her? She "believes" that there "may be" a link. Now she will "explore" the "possible" ........ blah blah blah ........ any one have a double blind clinical study? No? Thought not.

She then continues with a load of statistics, and anyone here should know a rise in two factors does not prove causality. There was also a corresponding increas in the sensitivity of testing procedures and a widening of the definition of many of the "problems" blamed on vaccinations.

The NVIC is anything but an impartial observer. It was founded by grieving parents who had just under gone a terrible tradgedy, the loss of a child. It is NOT a medical organization.

Excellent cut and past skills though.

What does this article have to do with vaccines?

The H5N1 strain was sent out accidentally for the creation of seasonal flu vaccines instead of H3N2.

And my pizza delivery driver had an accident.

So we should all stop ordering pizza in order to reduce car accidents?

That is clearly a false analogy.

Not really - it is as valid as many arguments against vaccination.

All the smoke keeps work from being focused on the real point that is work on improvements in medicine - too much beating of the breast and screaming.

Sorry, I can't let that stand. Baxter almost unleashes a pandemic which would have changed the face of humanity = car crash....???? I don't think so.

Too many vaccines for too many minor illnesses. As someone not in the risk group for HIV I would not take a vaccine for it. As a healthy adult I don't take the seasonal flu vaccine either, and guess what, I haven't had a serious illness in many years.

Some vaccines are effective. A lot are about selling a product. Like chickenpox vaccines... oh, and swine flu vaccines.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/Swine_flu/article6737507.ece

Quote: - Baxter almost unleashes a pandemic which would have changed the face of humanity = car crash....???? I don't think so.

Note: Any time someone uses the State of Jefferson tag it warns me of serious lack of contact with the ground.

As someone not in the risk group no one suggests you take a HIV vaccine

As someone not in the risk group one does not need hepatitis B vaccination and on and on

And on and on. A lot of people who took vaccinations over the years are perfectly healthy and a lot who haven't (including myself) are healthy, haven't been exposed to whatever, as well I guess.

It works well to mix up a thread discussing childhood vaccinations, flu vaccinations, hepatitis and HIV vaccination. All very different topics with very different considerations so all sorts of smoke is blown with quotes from various articles and no resolution of anything.

I live in the State of Jefferson, actually.

The OP was about HIV, so I was staying on topic. And the OP indicated that it is desirable for a majority of the populace to be vaccinated from HIV which, IMHO, is BS. The articles to which I linked attempted to illustrate the fact that not all vaccine makers are trying to cure the ailments of mankind as much as make a buck.

Blowing smoke? I don't think we are going resolve anything with regards to vaccines on CR4. Hopefully some open, honest discussion without any attempts at character assassination.

Cheers.

Really - Just who recognizes this so called State of Jefferson?

Bootstrapping I see

You would need at the very least the consent of a majority of the people of California & Oregon to start the process, just to be in line behind Puerto Rico for the position of 51st state

Which will never happen so it is like tilting windmills!

If an epidemic spreads who benifits?.Is it the lab,drug manufacturers, doctors who prescribe,hospitals and pharmacies which sells?

Oh my god, it is a conspiracy started by the drug companies?

That makes as much sense as most arguments.

I just love the conspiracy bunch - always plenty of bogey men to chase after.

Thats a good thing all in all since it shows that human error CAN happen, and that extra checks will now be put in place to prevent it. It was a wakeup call for complacent vaccine workers, a "one off" which can be pointed to by irate supervisors as something which can and will happen unless they keep a good close eye on things.

I note that nobody kept it secret....there was no conspiracy of silence....there was no passing the blame off to something or someone else....in fact, everything about this article simply re-affirms my faith that "big pharma" and "government" and everyone else involved are working properly for the public good.

Just ask for the MSDS sheets on the vaccination product. They have to have it by law and have to produce it. Read it and make a decision based partially on these facts. Vaccines have come a long way from 40-50 years ago and judging from the damage not the right way. They even had US Gov pass a law preventing or limiting damages for the side effects that include death, paralysis, brain damage etc. Not a pretty picture.

Look at the MSDS for iron ore reagent powder which is harmless - the MSDS would scare you. If you work in an iron ore processing plant you virtually eat the stuff every day.

Look at the MSDS for the newer generation of pesticides, many of which are less toxic than caffeine, vanilla or table salt and they will scare you.

To placate the fools greens, satisfy the government and cover the companies backside the MSDS has turned into a bad joke.

"Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles occurred before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics." Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. PhD

Historical trends show that deaths caused by childhood illnesses had already declined as much as 98% before vaccine programs were ever initiated. Evidence indicates that an improved standard of living, better nutrition, and increased sanitation, caused this drop in disease, not vaccines. Evidence also indicates that statistical tampering over the last sixty years has made vaccines appear more effective than they truly are.

"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new siagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis...According to one of the 19976 issues of the MMWR there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,00 cases of polio disappeared after the introductoin of mass vaccination" Dr. Vera Schiebner

The CDC reported a measles outbreak in a 100% documented vaccinated population. Studies show that children who received vaccinations were 14 times more likely to become learning disabled and develop asthma. There is virtually no asthma in unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated people are healthier, have hight disease resistance, and recover more rapidy from illness. There have never been any saftey studies done on vaccines that would meet the appropriate criteria. Sources: Donald Meserlian P.E. VOSI Chairman, & ASTM Member

There is a fundamental issue with injecting particles of infectious diseases directly into the bloodstream, thereby bypassing the immune system's first line of defence called the Th1 level of the immune system in a "surprise attack" on the second line of defence called the Th2 level--that is so distressing to the body it can cause anaphylactic shock. I nature, diseases are introduced into the body through the nose, mouth, skin and lungs, triggering a first line of defence that usually combats the illness before it ever reaches the bloodstream. Vaccines repeated "back-door assaults" on the Th2 level of the immune system make it hyper-sensitive and compel it to react inappropriately to other normally harmless substances like peanuts; the result is a generation of children with damaged immune systems who suffer from food and environmental allergies, asthma, and increasingly with life threatening anaphylactic disorders.

Gosh, is there STILL really any question that the anti-vaccsers are barking up the wrong tree? You would think that because they always say, "look at the evidence and decide for yourself" that automatically means the evidence will fall to the side of the anti-vacs. But, well, I did that, examined a bucket load of evidence. Why? Well, I am a teacher, and needed to know if I would just become a carrier or if I would be "protected". And the evidence is in, and clear. Flue shots save lives and I am now protected. But then, that's the problem with science...its not "sexy" like Jenny M., in fact, it is kind of dull and boring. Unfortunately for Opra and Jenny and Tyra, the great die off from h1n1 vaccines um, didn't happen like they predicted it would. And as we have seen, this woman was like, SO wrong! But then, we remember the hits, but never the misses.

I figure its pretty much Darwin in action, though once in a while, I get really ticked off! This story, for instance. But then, who am I, an avid motorcycle rider, heavy drinker, over weight former smoker and general hard case, to tell people they shouldn't contribute to the validity of the Dawinian selection. Its not vaccines which kill Americans, fat kills Americans.

I recommend Penn and Teller's excellent video on the subject. Better than anything I could say.

I have to give a GA for that post. Like you I too have just grown too weary to keep trying to argue with the vacine deniers. If a hundred years of solid evidence doesn't sway them, nothing we can say will.

To be clear

I agree with you that there is no evidence to support the notion "vaccines are bad" [though the removal of trace amounts of mercury preservatives is for the best]

I was complimenting vsar's through outline of successfully dealing with a bureaucracy & bureaucrats.

thank you.