James Lyons-Weiler 10/19/2020
Sometime in the coming months, either the Republicans or the Democrats will claim the prize of the office of The Presidency of the United States. At that point, a decision in the fork in the road of our public health system will be taken: we will enter a future in which the denial of vaccine risk and death denial will continue, in which freedom of speech is curbed, and in which public theater over COVID19 risk will continue, or we will enter a future in which overt, frank, rational discourse on the risks and benefits of vaccination – and of specific vaccines – will be tolerated and even encouraged. We’ll enter a new period of reality-based medicine, reality-based public health, and the gaslighting and misinformation from vaccine proponents will become increasingly less effective as people – including professionals – become increasingly emboldened to tell the world what they know.
For many, the latter future will an answer to their prayers will have been answered. The objective researchers and scientists who have labored in isolation, all the while being maligned and mischaracterized by mainstream allopathic medicine, will be more likely to share their studies and their findings without fear of job loss and character assaults. Physicians will be able to abide by Federal regulations requiring free, prior and informed consent for medical procedures and for post-market surveillance experimentation on humans to assess the long-term safety of vaccines. Indeed, that particular paradigm will come up for rational debate, and people who have directly experienced vaccine injury and death in their own lives will never again be asked to make yet another sacrifice from their families for some obliquely defined and never-measured “greater good”.
Public schools will once again be made available to the entire public, not just those who either have been fooled or forced by vaccine proponents who would like us all to believe that vaccines are universally safe and effective. When we can measure the real risks of vaccination and of specific vaccines, we will all be able to go back to school, work, restaurants, and life with our rights to choose via informed consent intact.
In the other future, the term “anti-vaxxer” will never come to be seen as the same debasing, dehumanizing abusive use of language that is otherwise known as “hate speech”. Articles will continue to be tolerated that call for the hanging of people who do not vaccinate. Calls by the most intolerant to round up those who do not vaccinate and lock them up, or, for some, worse: force vaccinate them will be represented by the press as reasonable. The use of police force to strip individuals down and bare their buttocks to allow police to force-vaccinate individuals – as is now the law in Victoria, Australia – will become normalized.
Parents who have already witnessed their children go into seizure, bang their heads, produce the encephalytic cry, and fall mute into autism will be forced – at the point of a gun if “necessary” – to witness their other children suffer identifal fates. Use of language that implies vaccine hesitancy will be banned – as in Australia.
And those who fed America boatloads of lies, distortions and misinformation will never be held accountable.
EVIDENCE OF BIAS AND MALIGNANCY IN VACCINE PROPONENTS
There have been many events over the past few years especially that raise an eyebrow on the objectivity of vaccine propoents. Many of these have been reported by many other blogs, by objective news outlets such as the Highwire with Del Bigtree, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, and Truth in Media with Ben Carson.
I’ll recap a few here.
“Vaccines Cause Herd Immunity”
Vaccine proponents spread misinformation about vaccines by telling half-truths, and leaving out critical information. Live inactivated virus-based vaccines have repeatedly been shown to fail to suppress transmission. Before COVID19, we saw entire schools shut down due to Mumps – in spite of 100% MMR vaccine coverage. We saw the accumulation of evidence that TdaP/DTaP vaccination was ineffective at supressing transmission. It was historically recognized that subclinical measles infections could boost immunity. These three facts are inconvenient truths that the world has forgotten: unless a vaccine reduces transmission of the pathogen it targets, it does not contribute to herd immunity.
How are mumps, measles and pertussis transmitted? All three are transmitted via respiratory droplets. Measles – mucuous in the throat and mouth. Mumps via saliva. Pertussis – mucuous in the throat and mouth. The vaccines for mumps, measles and pertussis are failing and are spread through coughing and sneezing. Is there any wonder why vaccine proponents want our kids masked?
“The Most Dangerous Thing in Vaccines is Water”
State Senator Richard Pan of California promulgated this fabrication out of desparation while he worked to strip Californians of their right to refuse vaccination. His activities have led to the greatest mass migration of medical refugees in the history of mankind. California is now at the whim of the far left. Watch what happens there. It is out of balance. The Ying has left the Yang.
“There Are No Aborted Fetal Cells in Vaccines”
Another whopper from Richard Pan, fed to his colleagues to influence their vote to strip Californias of their Federally guaranteed rights to informed consent during medical procedures and right to be free from medical experimention. Richard Pan is an outright, shameless liar – not the type of person I would want visiting my house, let alone running my state government.
“You Get More Aluminum from Food and Water and Anything Made of Food and Water than You’ll Ever Get From Vaccines”
This little piece of false advertising exists in a video on the CHOP website and represents an attempt to fool the public into coming and purchasing a product – vaccines – and paying for a service – vaccination. The misleading barker is Paul Offit. My own research and that of others has shown clearly that infants up to six months receive far more aluminum from vaccines that from breast milk, formula and water. Our research is peer-reviewed and has withstood attacks to force retraction. Someone please call the FTC about CHOP’s false advertising?
“You Can Inject 10,000 Vaccines and Be Perfectly Safe”
This falsity was uttered with contempt for childhood safety by Paul Offit. I can’t even.
“Vaccine Are Safe and Effective”
Said every news outlet that receives massive funding via advertising from Pharma, ever. The fraudulent and corrupt National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, aka “Vaccine Court”, has now paid out over $4.4 billion – BILLION – in compensation for injuries and deaths due to vaccination.
“The Payouts Do Not Prove Causality – Many Are Settlements”
While technically true, I’ll say it again: $4.4 Billion. The right types of studies capable of demonstrating causality are not conducted. The fact that studies of diseases of unknown origin have increased in a linear manner since the first national flu vaccine program – demands explanation by those who make over-arching claims about vaccine safety.
Vaccine death denialism aborts the natural grieving process and represents one of the most cruel aspects of vaccine risk, injury and death denialism. Appeals to the humanity of our fellow Americans and a plea for compassion is likely to help some realize the scale of the egregiousness of the vaccine risk denialism.
“Vaccines Do Not Cause Seizures”
CDC blithely reports now that 1 in 3 infants will have seizures. Like that’s normal. It’s not normal. They also report that there is risk of seizure following MMR and MMRV vaccines.
“Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”
“No study has ever shown”… because “No study capable of demonstrating causality has ever been conducted”. Vaccine makers use correlation and association studies on questions of safety, and correlation and association studies do not test causality. Many such studies are also overcooked studies suffering from low statistical power, had their final study design determined by manipulation following repeated rounds of analysis, or suffer from overadjustment bias.
“Vaccines Do Not Cause Demyelinating Disorders”
The first instances of Guillain-Barre Syndrome attributed to flu vaccine happen after the first national vaccination program. Some forms of GBS involve demyelination. It took 30 years for the condition to be recognized by the US HHS as a recognized vaccine injury in their table of vaccine injuries.
Now, when people suffer from other types of demyelinating disorders or paralysis following vaccination, diagnoses are changed to hide the potential role of vaccines, causality is denied. Look a Acute Flaccid Myelitis – the mysterious paralysis that occurs in children that has a seasonality that matches perfectly the post-pre-September rush to get kids caught up on vaccines before the start of school.
Doctors who vaccinate with aluminum-containing vaccines forget that by injecting aluminum they are positioning children (and adults) to become hyperimmunized to any virus, bacterium or spirochete that their patient may also have an active infection or come into contact with following vaccination.
“Associations Found Between Adverse Events and Vaccines Reflect ‘Healthcare Seeking Behavior'”
This distortion places the cart before the horse and is used to confuse findings of association between vaccines and adverse events in association studies. The original “Healthy User Bias” concern was that those the health of those who cannot vaccinate is so frail that the unvaccinated will tend to be less healthy than those who “can” vaccinate. So, Healthy User Bias should lead to more false findings of bad health in the unvaccinated, not in the vaccinated, and it should work against finding adverse events. So, when studies report finding poorer health in the vaccinated, healthy user bias may exist but only in that it led to an underestimate of the prevalence of bad outcomes following vaccination because people who saw their kids seizing, or experience ecephaltic cry, or fall mute with autism stop vaccinating, preventing other types of vaccine adverse events.
Pharmaceutical companies that design and make vaccines, doctors, and apparently anyone who vaccinates are protected from legal liability due to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Kids now receive 72 shots before they leave highschool. Our research shows that in the first year of life, infants are expected to be in aluminum toxicity 100% of their days.
A Pew poll conducted a few days ago found that 51% of people will refuse any new COVID19 vaccine. The goal of developing a safe, effective coronavirus vaccine has been thwarted by the vaccine manufacturers themselves who refused to conduct animal safety trials to see – using mice, rats, ferrets, or monkeys – if their vaccine was likely to cause disease enhancement via pathogenic priming. They opted instead to skip that critical step, which stopped the use of coronavirus vaccines in humans in the past.
Now, we’ll have to wait and see how many people have worse COVID19 infections, more serious COVID19 cases, and how may die from COVID19 infection following vaccination. How anyone can encouraging people to actually get the vaccine knowing that all prior coronvirus vaccine led to WORSE OUTCOMES is a mystery of justification. They may think “The pandemic is so bad… the risk is worth it” … but such thought are with no quantification of the risk, no understanding of what will happen if 100% vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is acheived.
100% Vaccination Achieves Maximum Vaccine Injury
Not everyone who is vaccinated suffers all of the adverse events that a vaccine might cause. It may also be true that the same people who might tend to suffer serious vaccine adverse events are the ones who might suffer most during an infection. But not everyone gets infected during an outbreak; herd immunity sets in, and those at risk can be offered special protections. With coronavirus, most people are now treated as outpatients. We now know the value of Vitamins D, C and A. We now know to look for signs of coagulopathy and to prevent it with anti-coagulants. Antivirals are “generally effective” according the Lancet. Plus, we now know that herd immunity will likely set in.
Those pushing for 100% coverage for an untested vaccine need to really think about what their agenda entails. Perhaps they do not realize that the only thing they will achieve is maximum vaccine injury: everyone who can be injured or killed by a particular vaccines will be injured or killed.
The flu shot is, on average about “woefully effective”: about 40% by official measures (see: A Message to Ethical MDs: The Problem with the 2017-8 Flu Vaccine is the 2016-7 Flu Vaccine) and Cochrane Collaboration: Flu Vaccines of No Benefit) What will the effectiveness of the COVID19 vaccine? Less than zero?
According to Paul Offit, 2/3 of the population would need to be vaccinated if the vaccine was 75% effective to achieved herd immunity.
By my estimation, COVID19 vaccines may in fact prove to have negative efficacy, in which case 0% of the population should be vaccinated so have a chance at reaching herd immunity.
Many people who previously argued with the vaccine risk aware and insisted that vaccines are perfectly safe for all- and effective- now show a healthy skepticism about the COVID19 vaccine- and their views are causing them to begin to see information and facts about other vaccines in a new light.
Vaccine makers see dealing with wha they see as the issue of vaccine risk awareness as a thorny and complicated task. They even have a game plan.
First, they have to identify the “vaccine hesitant”. They have published studies – without informed consent – of people on social media platforms to try to trace influencers. Which is ironic, because many of the most vocal are standig on the tops of benches in public with bullhorns; we are not hard to find. The vaccine risk aware are the ones who do not use allopathic pediatricians – they have walked away – after the verbal abuse, the gaslighting, the vaccine risk denialism. By their own bad and unethical behavior, the medical establishment has lost the trust of hundreds of thousands, and if they push COVID19 vaccines against the wishes of the majority of the public – hundreds of millions of Americans.
Vaccine proponants try to hitch their wagon to other social movements; they have tried to cast aspersion on the vaccine risk aware as Anti-semitic, apparently unware that many Jewish families have experienced injury and death due to vaccination. The represent edcuation of Black people about risks of vaccines as “targeting” Black people – as if the fact that Americans of Somali descent in Minnesota have lower levels of Vitamin D due to living at higher latitutde is not a reality (In their language, they refer to Americans of Somali descent as the “Somali immigrant community”. That says a lot about their views. They blame measles cases in the Somali community and elsewhere on so-called “anti-vaxxers” – never on waning efficacy of the MMR vaccine, which has not been updated in decades and is targeting the wrong strain of measles.
They try to tie vaccine risk awareness to national politics, but to no avail. They tried this by specifically lobbying Democrats to strip existing rights to vaccine excemptions away using false data in state after state after state. This is an obvious and failing strategy – because vaccines do not check your voter registration card before they injure you.
Now they are going after rugged American individualism, representing vaccine risk awareness as a stubborn belief that individuals know better than the government. Knowledge that your child has suffered death, or severe neurological or immunological impairment, combined with knowledge that the government worked actively to hide evidence of vaccine injury via the Institute of Medicine fiasco just might drive the point home – but it’s not that the vaccine risk aware believe that they know better than the government. It’s that the VRA know that they government knows more than they are telling the public, and they know that their families have paid the price. Pharma – specifically vaccine manufacturers – have externalized the cost of vaccine injury on the US population in the form of high infant death rates, massive increases in chronic illnesses, and childhood, teen and adult vaccine death. All they have left in their defense kit is denialism.
We need a Big Shift in awareness beyond vaccines. We need to change the culture of our economics such that profit from Externalized costs is seen – within corporations – as “bad money”. Placing a corporations’ future relationship with the public in jeopardy due to denial of product safety issues should be grounds for dismissal of executives and people at all stations in that corporation.
As a result of the medical establishment and Pharma doing the opposite to health that their social contract implies, Americans by the millions are now viewing their health as their personal responsibility for their health. For the vaccine risk aware, that includes protecting themselves, their families, and anyone they love from vaccine injury. Vaccine proponents refuse to acknowledge that Federal Regulations – such as those I cited in this Petition to Free Rebecca Bredow – guarantee the rights of parents everywhere to to choose what substances are injected into themselves and their children.
It would one thing if the Institute of Medicine had been allowed to work unfettered by influence by the CDC. It would also have been different if Cochrane Collaboration had not sold out the CDC in their HPV vaccine review. Instead, the fingers of vaccine industry representatives are all over the allegedly “independent” research and reviews conducted under contract. Direct inteference into IOM proceedig by CDC via by McCormick “Walter (Orenstein) doesn’t want us to find an association”; See: “Marie McCormick’s IOM Remarks Leave A Bitter Taste” . Direct interference in Cochrane Collaborative on review design by CDC’s Laurie Markowitz – leading to not a single mention of type replacement in that Cochrane review. The public has seen the dark side of American-stype fascism – collusion between corporations and governments. Let’s not forget that drug companies, through fabrications and for profit motive only, caused an opioid epidemic that has killed nearly half a million people.
Vaccines are very profitable for pediatricians – we’ll have a study on that sometime in 2020 or 2021 showing the numbers. The over-expensive “healthcare” industry has shown its true colors, and the public cannot unlearn what they know.
Experts are divided as to whether it’s better to try to change anti-vaxxers’ minds about vaccines or to simply push them to get vaccinated anyway, without worrying about how they feel.
I’ve notice that the more you speak with vaccine proponents whose income depends on vaccines, the more entrenched in their views they will go. They become more likely to misrepresent facts. A Yale epidemiologist testified in Connecticut last year that the measles virus “does not mutate”, which prompted a gasp and a roar of laughter from the crowd. The measles has a baseline mutation rate of 10^9 per generation, and the vaccine type of the wild type have been evolving away from each other since they were isolated in the 1960s.
Scary Diseases Tactic
Vaccine proponents are trying to scare the vaccine risk aware into adopting vaccines, including the COVID19 vaccine, by exaggerating the severity of diseases for which they want to sell vaccines. It’s marketing, not medicine. The FDA actually espoused this stategy in a presentation in which they encouraged doctors to make the need for vaccines appear to be more urgen that they really are. The fact that the American public has this information means that the paternalistic misinformation/propaganda tactics used in the ‘lie to the American people’ strategy by vaccine proponents has failed.
This approach shows that vaccine proponent are disinterested in the “greater good”. If they took their own medicine, they would be horrified that their actions might put another person or someone’s child at risk of harm. They would clamor for biomarkers for vaccine risk and injury, and they would petition for safer vaccines. Scaring people into putting their own children in harm’s way with photos of temporary measles infections is a tactic that the public can use on the vaccine proponents. I’ve seen the dead bodies of infants killed by vaccines while reviewing autopsy photos for vaccine injury cases. If anyone knows me, they know that those photos are something I should never, ever see. I cannot tolerate it for a single moments. Doctors should be shown grim pictures of intubated patients or photos of their deceased patients who are – permanently – dead from vaccination gone wrong.
Vaccine proponents are now also trying to represent vaccines as boosting natural immunity and protection from foreign invaders (viruses) as non-natural. Here, parents – including religious parents – remain ten steps ahead of the propagandists. Parents know that flattening the COVID19 curve has prevented natural herd immunity, and they know that means far more people will ultimately become infected. They know this because Anthony Fauci told them that the last thing we want is widespread infection because that would lead to herd immunity, and that would mean we don’t need a vaccine. Body sanctity to parents means not injecting metals like mercury and aluminum, chemicals like formaldehyde, and other people’s cells. “I’ll take my chances with the virus” is actually, mathematically, an optimal choice because the choice to vaccinate means 72 concoctions injected, whereas the likelihood of infection and serious illness from infection from vaccine-targeted pathogens is massively reduced due to sanitation and better treatments.
Adjusting attitudes of people whose livelihood depend on vaccination – and the treatment of vaccine-induced autoimmunity – is a fruitless exercise. Upton Sinclair once said ““It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Challenging some people with facts that threaten their worldview can lead to a psychological phenomenon known as the “backfire effect.”
I advocate instead for a strategy called “direct behavior change.” Parents might, for example, directly inform pediatricians of the specific reasons – the facts – backed by studies, in writing about why they expect choice in the matter of vaccination. Parents should send their pediatricians the Federal Regulations and educate them on their specific legal, professional and personal responsibilities to provide vaccine information sheets BEFORE vaccination; how pediatricians are, by law, required to report any and all potential vaccine adverse events, including the ones they themselves do not think were cause by vaccines – to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems. Parents should inform their pediatricians that they expect to the asked if they want to be in the CDC vaccine program, if they want a specific vaccine or not, following a review of the known and suspected adverse events. Parents should let the pediatricians know that under no conditions should they anyone working for the practice expect that they can merely inform parents or patients simply that they they are going to be vaccinated, or merely inform parents which vaccinations they’ll be performing during their child’s appointment, rather than ask them whether they’d like to vaccinate. In other words, parents must insist on their rights to free, prior and informed consent. (Read “Free Rebecca Bredow”, relevant text shared below as well).
Parents should also inform the school board that they will be bringing their children to school, unvaccinated or not, and dare them to be the school that physically assualts a parent who attempts to help their child into school.
Direct behavior change is not foolproof, though. Parents know that they must stand up, or that we will all be subjected to increasing penalties for exercising our Federal rights – no-jab no-pay, no driver’s license, no freedom to worship, no freedom to travel across state lines. Phone calls and postcards reminding school boards of the Federal regulations protecting people against post-market surveillance human experimentation are another tool that can be useful.
It might be worth listening to people who have switched from pro-vaccine to vaccine risk aware.
Mockery of the vaccine risk denialista won’t work. The typical pro-vaccine parent thinks they are right because they have been carpet-bombed with propaganda. They don’t yet have the same experiences as others who suffered. They don’t know about William Thompson, the Destefano study, or Julie Gerberding’s role in covering up aluminum toxicity in vaccines while she was director of the ATSDR at the CDC. They don’t know that she put Dr. Thompson on leave so Destanfo could present a santized version of their results on the imapct of on-time MMR on autism rates to the Institutes of Medicine. They don’t know about the confessions made by Thompson to Brian Hooker.
Vaccine proponents often do not perform due diligence, and they will just accept whatever simplified version of reality the vaccine industry provides. An example is the Vaccine Education web page at CHOP in Philadelphia. It is not peer-reviewed, and actually represents false advertising.
Ironically, vaccine proponents talk about “converting” the vaccine risk aware… as if vaccinology was a religion, or cult. If IPAK were funding Department Chairs at Universities across the US, and building wings of hospitals, like Pharma does, those interested in seeing the money continue to flow might just change their tune.
Maybe Offit and his ilk should be confronted with lawsuits for damages incurred by people who have killed or injured by vaccines due to their reckless misinformation. That would require a repeal of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act – after which every family could sue vaccine manufacturers, and doctors, who are protected against harm from vaccination. They are not protected against false advertising lawsuits.
Maybe a news site could walk doctors through every debunked vaccine-safety study, showing precisely why, down to the P values, they don’t show what vaccine proponents think they show. Maybe parents could take a cue from the measles studies and encourage doctors to imagine choking on a ventilator tube or feeding from a tube in their stomach as they lay paralyed from a vaccine as their spouse videochats them in a hospital bed.
Maybe they could do all of the above. And they are.
PETITION FROM 3 YEARS AGO THAT I HAND-DELIVERED TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY COURT THAT FREED THIS MOM
To: Judge Karen McDonald and Governor Rick Snyder
Re: Court Ordered arrest and imprisonment of Rebecca Bredow
Date: October 9, 2017
All around the US, parents are witness to an epidemic of vaccine injury, as evidenced by the fact that The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) has paid out over $3.7 billion in damages to families with vaccine injured members.
There are some relevant facts of which should be made aware:
1 vaccine is given on a single day (Miller, 2016):
Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death.”
Miller, NZ. 2016. Combining childhood vaccines at one visit is not safe. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 21:47-49. http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf
(2) Vaccine safety science in the US, including studies conducted or funded by CDC and vaccine manufacturers, is scandal-ridden. See Chatom Primary Care v. Merck (Case number 2:12-cv-03555), for example, in which two former Merck employees have alleged that they were told to falsify the efficacy data for Merck’s Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. They allege that antibodies against the mumps virus from rabbits were added to human serum samples to increase the apparent effectiveness of the MMR vaccine; those data were in fact submitted to the FDA, Merck received continuation of their contract, edging out competition.
(3) CDC Scientist William Thompson has alleged that his supervisors removed results showing a positive association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism in two clinical groups. Thompson’s statements will be mailed to you under separate cover.
(4) All vaccines are watched for safety issues in post-market surveillance studies. When these studies find no safety issue, the resulting clinical studies are hailed by vaccine proponents as “science”. When the studies find issues, they are rejected and downplayed as mere “correlation studies”. Nevertheless, they are studies. Retrospective studies are used based on vaccine injury reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, all individuals who choose to vaccinate are human subjects in a massive clinical study.
Under US Federal Regulations, all individuals in clinical studies are entitled to informed consent. The FDA states, “Post-marketing surveillance is a necessary component of vaccine safety monitoring” and because vaccine pre-clinical trials are relatively small and controlled, “previously unstudied components of a patient’s social or medical history may be risk factors which could impact the outcome of vaccination and contribute to the development of adverse events” (Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).
Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak “association studies” with data from passively collected data sources (such as VAERS). Patients are not informed that they, or their children are, in fact, participating in a large, shoddily-run, non-randomized retrospective clinical trial. This practice is widespread, and violates provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745].
Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Yet the rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated (FDA: Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy).
Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”)
[10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:
§46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.
“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”
Here we provide the relevant text of the Nuremberg Code which offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent, and stresses the rights of patients to refuse:
“Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”
Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical Procedures
Under US Law, all individuals, and legal wards (custodians) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures. The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment. To exercise this right, the patient is entitled to information of a sufficient nature to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. Because patients are entitled to this information, physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment. The duty to obtain a patient’s consent for treatment rests on the patient’s treating physician. Hospitals, nurses, surgical assistants, and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients. The treating physician’s duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent cannot be delegated. The duty is not eliminated, lessened, or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient’s consent prior to the procedure.
Here we provide to you the rules governing informed consent for medical procedures in the State of Michigan (R 330.7003):
R 330.7003 Informed consent.
“Rule 7003. (1) All of the following are elements of informed consent:
(a) Legal competency. An individual shall be presumed to be legally
competent. This presumption may be rebutted only by a court appointment of a guardian or exercise by a court of guardianship powers and only to the extent of the scope and duration of the guardianship. An individual shall be presumed legally competent
regarding matters that are not within the scope and authority of the guardianship.
(b) Knowledge. To consent, a recipient or legal representative must have basic information about the procedure, risks, other related consequences, and other relevant information. The standard governing required disclosure by a doctor is what a reasonable patient needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Other relevant information includes all of the following:
(i) The purpose of the procedures.
(ii) A description of the attendant discomforts, risks, and benefits that can reasonably be expected.
(iii) A disclosure of appropriate alternatives advantageous to the recipient.
(iv) An offer to answer further inquiries.
(c) Comprehension. An individual must be able to understand what the personal implications of providing consent will be based upon the information provided under subdivision (b) of this subrule.
(d) Voluntariness. There shall be free power of choice without the intervention of an element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, including promises or assurances of privileges or freedom. There shall be an instruction that an individual is free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation or activity at any time without prejudice to the recipient.
(2) A provider shall establish written policies that include procedures for evaluating comprehension and for assuring disclosure of relevant information and measures to ensure voluntariness before obtaining consent. The policies and procedures shall specify for specific circumstances the types of information that shall be disclosed and steps that may be taken to protect voluntariness. The procedures shall include a mechanism for determining whether guardianship proceedings should be considered.
(3) Informed consent shall be reobtained if changes in circumstances
substantially change the risks, other consequences, or benefits that were previously expected.
(4) A written agreement documenting an informed consent shall not include any exculpatory language through which the recipient, or a person consenting on the recipient’s behalf, waives or appears to waive, a legal right, including a release of a provider or its agents from liability for negligence. The agreement shall embody the basic elements of informed consent in the particular context. The individual, guardian, or parent consenting shall be given adequate opportunity to read the document before signing it. The requirement of a written consent shall not eliminate, where essential to the individual’s understanding or
otherwise deemed advisable, a reading of the document to the individual or an oral explanation in a language the individual understands. A note of the explanation and by whom made shall be placed in the record along with the written consent.
(5) A consent is executed when it is signed by the appropriate individual.
History: 1979 AC; 1998 AACS.”
In consideration of these laws and Codes, we assert that:
(1) With the unlawful detention of Rebecca Bredow, and the decision to usurp her right to choose for her child “X”, the state has enjoined as actors in the violation of informed consent for medical research on the safety of vaccines, and further,
(2) The Court has, with events leading up to Judge McDonald’s order to detain and imprison Rebecca Bredow, engaged in activities that are designed to coerce Rebecca Bredow to make a decision against her better judgement;
(3) The State of Michigan has, by following the order of Judge McDonald to arrest and imprison Rebecca Bredow, prevented her from exercising her international, federal and state-afforded rights to decide whether her child, X, should receive any, some, or no vaccines, and unlawfully denied her certain freedoms to which she is entitled under the laws of the State of Michigan and the United States of America;
(4) The State of Michigan has, by allowing her ex-husband to participate in the act of vaccinating X, countermanded the custodial decision handed down to Rebecca, in which she was given the rights, duties and responsibilities of primary custodial parent.
We are deeply concerned about Rebecca Bredow’s, and all citizens’ freedom to work, live and act according to the liberties afforded to her by the US Constitution and its Amendments. We are gravely concerned over the actions of the State of Michigan resembling those of a Police State, with arbitrary actions and issuances from the Court which show contempt for the right of parents to make medical decisions for and on behalf of their children. We would like to register, with the Court and with the Governor’s Office, a message that the State of Michigan should stand down on the issue of state-forced vaccinations; that morally and legally the State of Michigan should defend, not impinge upon parent’s rights to choose medical procedures; that the State of Michigan will be morally and legally responsible for any injuries to any children that state-forced vaccinations incur upon the population, and the freedom-loving people everywhere are deeply concerned about how far the State of Michigan will eventually go in the matter of State-forced medical tyranny.
(1) That from this day forward, in all cases of in which questions legal custody are being decided or contested, that the Court see the wisdom in deciding on the custody issues first, independent of the question of whether the child is to be vaccinated, and then allow the custodial parent to exercise their right to choose, or refuse, to vaccinate their child. This will secure and guarantee parents’ rights and set the correct precedent for jurisprudence on this matter. These rights are provided by the State of Michigan to all citizens, including those engaged in custodial disputes.
(2) That you immediately order the release of Rebecca Bredow and any and all other citizens who are currently imprisoned for willfully exercises their rights to choose or refuse medical procedures.Update #13 years agoTHE PETITION WAS HAND-DELIVERED TO THE COURT TWO DAYS AGO, AND REBECCA WAS FREED LATER THAT AFTERNOON! RALLY ON!”
“By their own bad and unethical behavior, the medical establishment has lost the trust of hundreds of thousands,”
This. I wish we could get members of the establishment to recognize this simple fact. We do not trust them because they have chosen to be untrustworthy. The power is in their hands. They could choose to be trustworthy — and people would trust them.