As States Push for Reason and Rationality, New York Times Goes Over the Edge, Calls for Mandatory Death for a Genetic Minority

Clearly, The New York Times has lost it.

STATES ACROSS THE US are working to secure patient’s – and parents’ rights to informed consent.  Rights are assured in 49/50 states.  Since mandates first came into existence, over 90 years ago, state legislatures found it wise to respect religious and philosophical exemptions for waivers for school attendance.

I won’t name which states are finding it necessary to work on legislation to re-assert patient rights because those who need to know are working on it, and I won’t broadcast these initiatives and give opponents information that can use to curb these developments.

In one state, state legislators are demanding that they, not the health department, have the final say on which vaccines are approved for use on patients in their states.  Why?  Because they, not appointed officials, answer to the electorate – and their constituents are taking up a lot of time in their offices educating them on vaccine risk.

In another state, a bill is being drafted to ban any vaccine containing thimerosal, and limit the amount of aluminum injected per day to enforce compliance with the federal regulations limiting aluminum exposure.

Finally, PA Senator Mike Folmor is calling on Congress to repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and to respect every person’s rights to informed consent, guaranteed by Federal Law and Regulations:

The ability to make decisions about what goes into our bodies is a basic human right. This personal autonomy is challenged whenever government requires mandatory vaccinations. Indeed, sticking needles into a human body is the very definition of intrusive.

California is the worst possible example for other states to follow.  The New York Times has lost their collective minds.  Mandates without exemptions create a situation where those who are destined to be injured by vaccines will be found, and injured, with mathematical certainty.

Mandates for vaccines are, for some,

Mandatory death sentences, for having the wrong genes.

Mandated Guillan Barre Syndrome.

Mandated lifetime paralysis.

Mandated lifetime autoimmunity.

Mandated food allergies.

Mandated encephalopathy, leading to autism, for millions.

Mandated tics.

Mandated seizures.

Mandated job loss, for exercising their rights to informed consent.

Autism rates in CA jumped 7% in CA.

I would recommend not reading the New York Times until they retract their call for injury and death in a genetic minority of people who, through no fault of their own, are susceptible to vaccine injury.

The majority who benefits from the suffering of a minority should protect the minority, and lift them up as heroes, not toss them to the side and deny their suffering and mandate that more people be injured because vaccine injuries are causing “vaccine hesitancy”.


  1. Love the article and admire what you stand for and write about. Only one thing bothers me at the end of this article. You write ‘the majority who benefits from the suffering of a minority……’ I am confused. Who benefits? From what? From Vaccines? Or from the sale of Vaccines? Vaccines are old medicine, now they have become lethal to some, dangerous to others and are useless to the majority. And we have no idea why or how.. Genetic testing might be the way to go? Then….. no need anyway for a vaccine, just help for the body’s own immunity. BUT…..there is no motivation to change. I thought science was meant to be curious and open to change.

    1. Patricia, I respect your opinion of whether future means of artificial immunization are for you, or for your family. I won’t debate for, or against efficacy on current “vaccines” – each is its own story, each has specific limitations. But, if the story goes “vaccines have saved millions of lives” and the majority believes that, they should bend over backwards to protect those their story line puts at risk. That’s my message. I’ve shared a ton of information on limitations of individual vaccines here, and elsewhere. It does no good to generalize about “vaccines”. There are no studies so far on association of some vaccines w/autism, so generalizing about safety on specific injuries/adverse events is counter productive as well. It is really inconceivable that court cases exist against Merck for alleged fraud on efficacy of mumps – and people are pushing to strip citizens of their rights to exemptions to vaccinate and MMR is included among those. If it’s a fraudulent product, really, why would any school board abide by a mandate? Why would any state legislature abide by a mandate w/out exemptions?

  2. Thankyou James. I understand ‘now ‘where you are coming from’ to use a well worn phrase which has its uses. And of course I respect your views. I am not of the majority opinion, I tend to avoid crowds and the herd. I am also not convinced that vaccines saved millions of lives, antibiotics, yes. As to whether vaccines cause autism, I doubt that too. More likely it is simply mimicking symptoms. But they do cause brain damage, and isn’t that diagnosis sufficient, does it need any other ‘contentious’ definition?
    The whole subject of autoimmunity fascinates me and I am not a scientist, I am an actor and an artist and I look and I listen. I also have M.E. possibly from a flue vaccine. And I am appalled at the level of anxiety and fear of disease that now pervades our society.
    I shall continue to enjoy your observations I hope. I am British btw and have deep concerns about where the uk is headed on this whole issue – how public health is viewed and should be handled. Another story.

  3. Excellent article! Dr. Lyons-Weiler makes it clear that he opposes mandates and demands that everyone be permitted free and informed vaccine choice. As most of us do, with the exception of biased media like the New York Times.

    Dr. Richard Moskowitz’ new book Vaccine makes it clear that autoimmune reactions are inherent in the very process of vaccination. I don’t think there is any vaccine which is “safe” for anyone, although of course there are many, like everyone in my family, who have genes which predispose to severe vaccine reactions. Genetic screening before vaccination should be offered for those genes which we are aware of now, but there are others which create danger which we may never be aware of. And there are always environmental factors which increase risk when present.

    Dr. Lyons-Weiler is NOT trying to castigate or marginalize anyone for having “faulty” genes. These genes in many cases contribute to forming a healthy, alert immune system. It’s not that they’re bad, or that those who have them are weak and inferior. And it’s not that we are the only ones at risk from vaccines.

    But it is also true that diseases like tetanus and diphtheria were and are very severe for the minority who got a clinical case of them, often fatal. Polio was crippling and sometimes fatal for the minority who got a severe case of it. Meningitis as well. I don’t think anyone would try to say that the minority who was susceptible to severe cases of these diseases, often death, was genetically inferior and unworthy of protection. The vaccines for these diseases are usually very effective. I would recommend that people consider getting the homeopathic prophylaxis available for all the VPDs: it has been proven safe and effective. But we shouldn’t try to say that none of the diseases was that bad or that the vaccines for them were and are ineffective. We should, as Dr. Lyons-Weiler says, consider each vaccine and disease on their merits, and those who freely choose to get them must be aware that it may or may not turn out to be the wisest choice.

Leave a Reply