From Hell To Veins

February 24, 2016

Stop Colorado Bill HB 1164 A Major Privacy Violation

Filed under: HOME — nwqfk @ 3:15 p02
Tags: , , , ,

As usual, conflict of interest has it’s fingerprints all over this medical privacy violating bill.

CALL YOU STATE REP.

This latest stunt attempting to be pulled off by the vaccine / drug lobby will work just like gun registration.

HB 1164 is being proposed by the state of Colorado to BYPASS federal privacy laws between public and privates schools and third parties who want your child’s medical information.  Namely vaccine exemption information.

It works just like gun registration where it provides a ‘legal’ loophole for third parties like CPS with the full backing of big pharma controlled ‘health organizations’ to come in to your families private lives.  So, instead of gun confiscation think of ‘child confiscation’.
———————————————————-
Colorado Health Department Wants to Track Parents Filing for Vaccine Exemptions

REASONS WHY HB 1164 SHOULD BE OPPOSED:  The state health department is trying to hijack control of vaccine exemptions for school and daycare attendance and force all families using a vaccine exemption to submit it online directly to them for their storage and use instead of directly to a school or daycare.

There is the potential for this private information to be abused:

Immunization information systems like CIIS are being used for interventions including home visits, reminder and recall systems, community based interventions implemented in combination and standing orders.

Vaccine tracking systems and other public health databases can be and have been used to harass those who have chosen to delay or decline vaccines
.
Data breaches happen frequently.
HIPAA provides no protection as the so-called current “opt-out” from the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) does not remove private information. The new database created by HB 1164 would put you in a separate, internal database and protecting “confidentiality” is not the same as protecting privacy.  Once in the hands of CDPHE, because of permissions for unconsented disclosure for public health purposes authorized by HIPAA, this information could be used to identify and target individuals who are legally not vaccinated by choice for interventions and harassment. This information could also be used to discriminate against these families down the road or even integrated with the information in Colorado’s onerous vaccine tracking and enforcement system called the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS).
There is a lack of trust and transparency between CDPHE and parents who choose not to follow the one-size-fits-all vaccination schedule:

The Colorado Dept. of Health has a history of trying to adopt rules that go beyond their legislative authority, including in 2011 when a workgroup tried to drastically change and restrict the exemptions provided by state law.   It appears that the Colorado Department of Health has presumptuously already set in place the hijacking of the exemption process and implementation of the long standing state law by announcing these drastic changes in the Parent/Guardian FAQs posted on the web site even before HB 1164 has had a first hearing.  2014 HB 1288 required the health department to provide assistance to schools with the analysis and interpretation of the immunization data.  It DID NOT give the health department the authority to create a new separate database and to hijack the current exemption process
.
In a recent state audit, the health department was found to have engaged in activity with the Colorado Children’s Immunization Coalition that was considered a conflict of interest.  As reported by the Durango Herald on Jan. 26, 2016, Audit finds conflict of interest at state health department, the health department contracted with the Colorado Children’s Immunization Coalition awarding $1.8 million in contracts to the coalition from November 2008 through July 2015. From 2012 through 2014, more than half of the vendor’s revenue came from health department contracts.  Given that department personnel were members of the vendor’s board, state auditors raised concerns about a conflict of interest. The Colorado Constitution states that government employees should avoid conflicts of interest to ensure that the state obtains maximum value.

The disrespect and contempt for families exercising their legal right to a vaccine exemption demonstrated by supporters of bills like HB 1164 and HB 1288 in 2014 which created this mess, illustrate exactly why families don’t want CDPHE to have their school and daycare vaccine exemptions and identifying information associated with them.

HB 1164 violates privacy and federal law (FERPA).  If HB 1164 passes there will be NO PRIVACY PROTECTIONS for this most sensitive data:

Once the health department has possession of the exemption information, FERPA privacy protections no longer apply. Because CDPHE is considered a public health authority under HIPAA, they are authorized to use this private information once they have it for preventing or controlling disease and public health interventions without your knowledge or consent. CDPHE and CIIS are not covered entities under HIPAA, so HIPAA provides NO privacy protection for this information.

The current opt-out system for the state vaccine surveillance database (CIIS) does not truly allow anyone to purge their record because personal information is permanently retained. If HB 1164 passes, exemption information also will be retained by the health department in a separate, internal CDPHE database. The result of this will be for families who don’t want to be tracked or receive vaccines is that their information will be stored in two separate databases without their consent.

When CIIS was expanded to allow direct contact for reminders and recalls in 2005 and the again in 2007 to include adults, legislators refused to require prior written consent before information is put into the tracking system.  Requiring prior written consent before any information is put into the system, or an “opt-in” system is the only way to ensure that the only people being tracked are those who want to and have given their permission.  Once the schools hand over this information under HB 1164, it is gone and the parent has no control over what the health department does with it.

Many parents do not even realize their child is already in the tracking system because it is populated without consent by the electronic birth certificate, practitioners, clinics, hospitals and health insurance plans.  These entities are only required to inform you of your right to the so-called opt-out and that you have a right to exemptions, but most don’t even do that.  The only time your prior written consent would be required is when schools covered under FERPA provide that information.   If you are not sure if you or your child is already in the tracking system (CIIS), you can call them at 303-692-2437, option 2, or 1-888-611-9918, option 1.
HB 1164 is costly and unnecessary:

2014 HB 1288 required schools post vaccination and exemption rates on request.  However, there was no fiscal note attached to the bill. It was stated that the work required by HB 1288 aligned with current department workload and no new appropriations were required.  Now the department has asked for additional funding for the tracking system via HB 1247. As reported by The Denver Post, some legislators are looking for $1.35 million in the state budget to bolster vaccine programs, including a statewide vaccination registry.

HB 1288 created the unnecessary burden for schools to provide this information without any funds to support it and now supporters of HB 1164 and the department of health want to take control of the very burden they have created.  This is going to be costly and unnecessary.  The rule that was adopted by the Colorado Board of Health on April 15, 2015 requires all religious and personal belief exemptions to be submitted every year, even though the only required vaccine for 7th through 12th grade in Colorado is a Tdap booster shot.  Prior to kindergarten entry, a nonmedical exemption form must be submitted at each interval in the 2015 ACIP Birth-18 years immunization schedule when immunizations are due.  Medical exemptions would also have to be submitted to the health department. This extra reporting requirement is designed to harass and make the process for parents utilizing exemptions  more difficult.

Supporters of HB 1288 that passed in 2014 argued that parents of immune compromised children wanted to know the exemption rates in schools.  Exemption information for any given school does not give a parent of an immune compromised child all the information they need to decide if that school is a safe place for their child.

Some people are non-responders to some vaccines and vaccine effectiveness for some vaccines, especially for pertussis containing vaccines, wanes rapidly.

Some students are provisionally enrolled and not fully vaccinated. Federal law, the McKinney-Vento Act, requires that homeless students be allowed to attend school without proof of immunizations.

There are no requirements (and there shouldn’t be) that teachers, staff, and administration be vaccinated with the same childhood vaccine schedule
.
These all are people who are no different immunologically than a healthy student with a vaccine exemption and yet they represent a much larger percentage of the school population than the small number of students using a vaccine exemption targeted by this bill.

On the other hand, students with active HIV infections are not only allowed to attend school, the confidentiality of their infection status is protected in state and federal law. Students infected with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C also attend school without parents of other students being told.

Students who are vaccinated with live viral vaccines experience viral shedding and can infect susceptible individuals for a period of several weeks post vaccination and yet no notices are published in schools and classrooms warning of viral shedding of recently vaccinated students.
Some people who are vaccinated still get the illness (vaccine failures) while some have subclinical infections and can still transmit vaccine preventable diseases and not show symptoms because the vaccine suppresses them
.
Nothing is being done to disclose these real risks to families of immune compromised children.

The bottom line is 2014 HB 1288 should have never been passed because it doesn’t give any useful information on keeping children safe in schools while it isolates and marginalizes healthy children whose parents don’t agree with all government mandated vaccines by focusing schools and parents on misleading and incomplete information.  2014 HB 1288 also forces parents and schools to waste time and resources repeatedly submitting and collecting the same exemption information.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Handing over sensitive confidential vaccine exemption information directly into the hands of the health department for school attendance requirements due to a bad bill being passed last session is not acceptable.  Schools should be responsible for personal information in the school record where the privacy and use of this information is protected by federal law. OPPOSE HB 1164.
Sincerely,

Advertisements

July 17, 2011

Amazing Vaccine Testimonies In MA

February 18, 2011

Vaccination Exemption. Your Unalienable Right.

The goal with legislatures is to make strong, concise arguments with credible support. Below is an outline to bring to YOUR states law makers.

Editors Note:
If the Supreme Court makes it the law of the land that a woman can ‘choose’ to have something ‘removed’ from her body as a God given right, then EVERY man, woman and child WITHOUT QUESTION has the God given right to ‘choose’ NOT TO HAVE SOMETHING PUT INTO THEIR BODIES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

The autonomy of ones ‘self’ is what defines a free person from ‘property of another’. Your unalienable right by YOUR creator to say NO to vaccines, drugs, radiation… can NOT be allowed to be thrown in the trash bin because someone simply says being ‘forced’ these dangerous treatments “are for the greater good.” NEVER!
—————————————————————–

Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative

(NaturalNews For All Links And Sources)
It is not enough to be informed about the many problems with current immunization policy and practice. We must effectively apply that knowledge to expand our right to make informed choices. Where the rubber meets the road with vaccine rights is in the statutes and regulations that provide or restrict those rights. Therefore, a great deal of my time is spent helping citizens throughout the U.S. present their case to state legislatures about the necessity of the right to make informed choices wherever vaccines are concerned.

On February 10, 2011, citizens of New Hampshire met with a state committee to present their case for the passage of a bill to provide a conscientious exemption to immunizations. Most states east of the Mississippi River offer only medical and religious exemptions; Mississippi and West Virginia only medical. By invitation and request of an informed New Hampshire activist, I provided the following information for them to present to the legislative committee that is considering the bill. After having researched and written this document, I am convinced that such a bill represents a level of choice that is not merely justifiable, but rather, a moral and ethical imperative.

The arguments are presented below. They are not comprehensive – books have been written on some of these topics – but the goal with legislatures is to make strong, concise arguments with credible support. Their time is often limited, and their ability to hear alternative points of view potentially limited as well. The question is not so much “What is the whole truth?” as it is “What will get the job done?” The actual letter is available at http://www.vaccinerights.com/legisl… and revisions to the arguments may appear in the future on the Vaccine Rights website as well.

TEMPLATE: ARGUMENTS FOR THE ENACTMENT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTION TO IMMUNIZATIONS

I. Credit Given to Vaccines for 20th Century Childhood Infectious Disease Declines is Misplaced

Childhood infectious disease decline throughout the 20th Century is widely but erroneously attributed to vaccines. On average, about 90 percent of infectious disease decline preceded vaccines, while some diseases declined without any vaccines at all such as typhoid fever, scarlet fever, scurvy and tuberculosis.1 In fact, some disease rates actually increased following the introduction of vaccines. For example, during 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, Biostatistics Department Head at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health,2 testified that cases of polio increased substantially after polio vaccines were introduced – 50 percent from 1957-58, and 80 percent from 1958-59 – and that the Public Health Service deliberately manipulated statistics to give the opposite impression.3 Meanwhile, polio declined in countries that didn’t vaccinate.4 Therefore, 20th century disease declines do not support an absolute vaccine mandate.

II. A Reliable Vaccine-Disease Risk-Benefit Assessment is not Feasible

A. First, we do not have precise disease mortality data. For example, with regard to the recent H1N1 pandemic, the CDC reported U.S. laboratory confirmed flu deaths (both swine and seasonal) for the 2009-2010 flu season were 2,1175. However, the CDC estimated U.S. swine flu deaths alone at 8870 aa??” 18,3006. In stark contrast, Flu Tracker (Rhiza Labs) estimated only 4642 fatal U.S. swine flu cases.7 Documenting disease deaths has been problematic historically as well. For example, in 1974, the CDC determined that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases.8 The truth is, we have only non-precise, widely varying “guesstimates” for disease mortality figures.

B. We know even less about the scope and severity of vaccine injury and death. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and National Vaccine Injury and Compensation Program (NVICP) have revealed irrefutably that vaccines cause permanent injuries and deaths, but they are inadequate measures of the scope of the problem. The FDA and CDC have admitted that reported adverse events represent as few as 1-10 percent of the events actually occurring.9 According to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, reported events may be less than 1 percent.10 Furthermore, “No data get collected, and it remains unknown whether vaccination increases the incidence of most [chronic] diseases, particularly rare diseases.”11 Where there are huge unknowns concerning how vaccines affect other disease rates, and when the actual number of vaccine injuries and deaths may be up to 100 times greater than the number documented by the federal government, state governments are ethically compelled to allow a conscientious exemption.

III. The Belief That Unvaccinated Persons Pose a Risk of Harm to Others is Without Merit

A. If vaccines work, then of course unvaccinated persons pose no risk to vaccinated persons at all. The persistent, widespread claim that unvaccinated people “put everyone else at risk” is, therefore, nothing more than absurd fear mongering. The likely real basis for such claims is the enormous profit potential from vaccines. From the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry, every man, woman and child on the planet is a potential recipient of vaccines from the moment of birth until their last breath. The pharmaceutical industry, responding to this vast marketing opportunity, now has over 330 vaccines either in development or already on the market,12 despite the profound drop in disease rates across the last century suggesting the need for fewer, not more, vaccines. Citizens should have a conscientious exemption allowing them to opt out of this mad, pharmaceutical feeding frenzy.

B. A more specific concern is the claim that the tiny percentage of persons not vaccinated for medical reasons, perhaps along with the larger percentage of vaccinated persons whose vaccines don’t work, are put at risk by those exercising non-medical reasons. This belief is also without merit. It is based on the herd immunity theory, which states that if most of a population is immune, the entire population is protected. The presumed problem is that if too many people opt out of vaccines, the herd immunity effect will be compromised, and those not immune due to medical exemptions or failed vaccines are at risk.

Aside from the absurd implication that unvaccinated persons somehow become “disease magnets” that “create” or “attract” disease in communities where diseases have been absent for decades (and whose absence substantially preceded vaccines), this concern is erroneous because the herd immunity theory has been substantially disproved. For example, measles, mumps, small pox, pertussis, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations.13,14,15,16,17 In 1989, the CDC reported: “Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent.18 [They] have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years.”19 The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100 percent vaccinated population.20 A study examining this phenomenon concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”21 The disturbing implication here is that efforts to maximize immunization rates may actually be counterproductive. Recent outbreaks in California, New York and New Jersey also occurred in highly vaccinated populations.22,23

Official statistics for the recent swine flu pandemic show that the U.S. vaccinated 30 percent of the population against swine flu, yet had more than eight times its proportional share of international swine flu deaths. England vaccinated 8 percent of its population and had two times its proportional share. But Poland, which refused swine flu vaccines altogether, had only one-tenth of its proportional share of international swine flu deaths.24 These data strongly suggest that the swine flu immunization campaigns may actually have been counterproductive. Therefore, citizens should have the right, individually, to determine whether or not any given vaccine is appropriate for themselves and their children.

IV. Mandatory Vaccination Prevents Citizens From Choosing Proven Safer, Less Costly, More Effective Alternatives.

A. In the fall of 2008, Cuba used homeoprophylaxis to protect 2.5 million residents of Cuba from a Leptospirosis outbreak following tropical flooding. The protective effect profoundly exceeded that of conventional immunizations – 10 infections and no deaths with homeoprophylaxis vs. thousands of infections with many deaths in prior years with conventional immunization. The cost was about one-fifteenth that of conventional immunization. This was achieved “with full scientific verification.”25 [emphasis added] Numerous other instances of successful homeoprophylaxis have been documented around the world over the past 200 years, including here in the U.S.26 With homeoprophylaxis, adverse events are virtually non-existent; there is none of the resulting death and disability that inevitably occurs with the widespread use of conventional immunizations. For those who consider homeopathy unproven or believe that it can’t work, the implications are even more dramatic. If that is really the case, the use of immunizations in Cuba prior to 2008 was necessarily profoundly counterproductive.

B. A recent Japanese study found that “Vitamin D [is] better than vaccines at preventing flu,”27 and experts say that vitamin D toxicity fears are unwarranted.28 In a 2010 review, the esteemed Cochrane Collaboration, an independent, international consortium of medical researchers, issued a WARNING stating that “reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions.”29 The review found that “vaccine use did not affect . . . working days lost” and “had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.” State legislators would do better to mandate vitamin D supplements than to mandate flu vaccines.

Meanwhile, the documented manipulation of scientific data in flu vaccine studies raises serious questions about the quality of studies on other vaccines, if not also about the reliability of medical research generally. Indeed, according to Newsweek, the new chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center says that people are “being hurt and even dying” due to widespread errors in medical research.30 It is no longer sufficient to base policy on study conclusions alone. We must scrutinize the studies’ methods, data, funding sources, potential conflicts of interest, etc., before accepting and acting on their conclusions.

Surely it is not the intent of state legislatures to implement health policy based on erroneous information, or to prohibit citizens from accessing the most efficacious, cost-effective, and safest choices for disease prevention available. The serious questions concerning the reliability of vaccine medical research and the availability of proven alternatives to conventional immunizations compel state legislatures to provide citizens with the right to a conscientious exemption from immunizations.

V. Conflicts of Interest Raise Serious Questions About Vaccine Policy

A. The Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) develops written immunization recommendations that are adopted by the CDC. These become CDC recommendations that in turn are substantially enacted into law by the states. However, some ACIP members have conflicts of interest; some are right out of the vaccine industry or otherwise situated such that they stand to profit from the very policies they create. Therefore, states must scrutinize ACIP recommendations carefully, and accept or reject those recommendations based on the findings of that scrutiny, and not merely accept federal agency recommendations at face value.

B. There are conflicts of interest in the CDC as well. In December of 2009, Julie Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., announced her job change from CDC Director (where she promoted vaccines) to President of Merck Vaccines31. Given the revolving door between agency and industry, we cannot presume that CDC recommendations are necessarily always objective. Given this interrelationship between industry and government, states have an ethical and moral imperative to exercise careful scrutiny of CDC policies and recommendations, and to implement state policy based upon the findings of their own investigations.

C. Conflicts of interest exist at the international level. On June 3, 2010, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) revealed the existence of undisclosed, serious conflicts of interest in the WHO along with scientifically unsupportable distortions of information from the WHO concerning the swine flu pandemic.32 BMJ’s Editor in Chief advised: “The current leadership of WHO may need to resign . . . We must create a world in which the best experts are those that are free from commercial influences.”33 The WHO did not volunteer any conflict of interest information until Aug. 11, 2010, after the pandemic was declared to be over,34 and no one at the WHO resigned.

Given that conflicts of interest exist throughout federal and international vaccine policy-making agencies, states are morally and ethically compelled to scrutinize meticulously the recommendations of those agencies, and to base state immunization policy and law on the findings of their own, independent analyses. Unless and until that occurs, and unless such analyses clearly dictate otherwise, states are morally and ethically obligated to provide citizens the right to informed choice, by way of a conscientious exemption to mandatory vaccines.

VI. Reliance on the Pharmaceutical Industry is Severely Misplaced

A. In December of 2009, the WHO reported: “Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs throughout all stages of the medicines chain, from research and development to dispensing and promotion.”35 Thus, a high level of scrutiny is required when considering products, claims and recommendations coming from this industry.

B. The pharmaceutical industry regularly engages in criminal behavior. In 2008, Merck was fined $650 million under the False Claims Act. In 2009, Pfizer was assessed a $1 billion criminal fine, along with a $1.3 billion civil fine, in its fourth settlement since 2002 over illegal marketing. In 2009, Ely Lilly was assessed a $515 million criminal fine and a $900 million civil fine. In 2010, GlaxoSmithKline was assessed a $150 million criminal fine and $750 million civil fine. Over the past 10 years, these and other companies including TAP, Tenet Healthcare, HCA, Serono, AstraZenica, Abbott Labs, Bristol Myers Squibb, SmithKline Beecham, Shering-Plough, and Bayer Corporation were assessed criminal and/or civil fines for unlawful acts in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The pharmaceutical industry has become the biggest defrauder of the federal government under the False Claims Act, and the problem has gotten consistently worse over the past few years.36

It is critical to understand that criminal behavior, by definition, means that the perpetrator had knowledge of the unlawfulness of the acts committed. These companies knew exactly what they were doing each and every time. We can’t know how many crimes were committed that were not caught and prosecuted, but based on those that were, we know that criminal behavior in the pharmaceutical industry is routine, presumably because it is, on the whole, profitable (which strongly suggests that there are crimes committed that don’t get caught – not unlike the drug cartels). Since this behavior has gotten worse in recent years, we know that it is substantially likely to continue to occur in the future. Given that the pattern of behavior has been widespread and decades in the making, it is absolutely fair – indeed, necessary – to factor this pattern of behavior into an overall assessment of the character of this industry, and to assess the general credibility and reliability of their products accordingly.

The point is this: NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE REQUIRED ABSOLUTELY TO TAKE A PRODUCT FROM AN INDUSTRY THAT ROUTINELY ENGATES IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

Having the right to say ‘NO’ to the criminal pharmaceutical industry is a moral and ethical imperative.

VII. Philosophical Exemptions Are Time-Tested and Safe

Currently, about 20 states containing a majority of U.S. citizens have philosophical exemptions to immunizations. If these exemption rights were causing serious problems, these exemption laws would either not have been enacted in the first place, or would have been quickly repealed. However, this has not happened. Apparently, philosophical exemptions have had no significant adverse effect on infectious disease rates.

Furthermore, all states have authority under the U.S. Constitution to mandate vaccines in the event of an emergency,37 regardless of citizens’ religious or philosophical objections, and to quarantine unvaccinated persons when necessary. So, if the unvaccinated should ever prove to pose a serious risk of harm in the future, there is authority for the state to act as it deems necessary to protect its citizens.

VIII. Medical Experts Disagree About Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness

There is a growing body of medical experts who are speaking out with concerns about vaccines.38 Independent medical research contradicts pro-vaccine research funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The question, then, is whether or not government should assume the role of deciding who is correct, and impose its opinion in a one-size-fits-all policy on constituencies that consist of individuals with varying needs. The far better health care policy is one where individuals have the flexibility to make a customized risk-benefit analysis for themselves and their children in consultation with their health care providers – professionals who know their needs. Some may choose vaccines, but others may find that for them, the risks outweigh the benefits. Whatever the choice, all should have the right to make that assessment without government interference. With herd immunity having been disproved, there is no scientific basis for government imposing its will on the people, collectively, usurping the rights of the individual.

IX. Vaccination Raises a Fundamental Rights Question.

Government mandate of immunizations absolutely, without a conscientious exemption, raises a profound fundamental rights question. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent injury and death, and that risk is presently neither quantifiable nor preventable. In a society where the vast majority of disease decline preceded vaccines, where in some instances vaccines caused a reversal of prior disease declines, where in some instances vaccines have proven to be counterproductive, where policy is based on a disproven herd immunity theory, and where policy is substantially driven by a corrupt industry that routinely engages in criminal behavior and that profits handsomely by the policy it drives, such a mandate is contrary to the very essence of what it means to be a democratic republic.

The international debate about vaccine safety and effectiveness is anything but resolved. Indeed, a fair and open conversation is, if ultimately inevitable, still yet to be fully had. Pending a final outcome of this debate, and given the high stakes involved and problems cited above, citizens in a free society should have the right to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests. Those who believe in vaccines are welcome to have them, and if vaccines really work, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. In the meantime, state governments have authority under the U.S. Constitution to require unvaccinated children to stay home during outbreaks, and to impose vaccines or quarantine on unvaccinated citizens in declared emergencies. So, governments have nothing to fear by granting their citizens the right to informed choice. Indeed, given the above, governments have nothing less than a moral, ethical and legal imperative to provide that right.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Credit given to vaccines for 20th century infectious disease declines is misplaced. Vaccine history does not support an absolute mandate for vaccines.

2. Data for accurate vaccine-disease risk-benefit is not available. Therefore, government lacks the means by which to adequately determine whether or not vaccines provide a net benefit and are in fact actually necessary, and therefore, must allow conscientious exemptions.

3. Claims that the unvaccinated pose a risk of harm to the vaccinated are unfounded (if vaccines work, how could an unvaccinated person harm a vaccinated person?). Claims that the unvaccinated pose a risk of harm to those who can’t be vaccinated or whose vaccines don’t work are based on a misplaced belief in the disproven “herd immunity” theory. Therefore, the unwarranted, fear-based concerns about risks posed by the unvaccinated do not present a legitimate bar to the enactment of a conscientious exemption right. Furthermore, those who can’t be vaccinated or whose vaccines don’t work have viable alternatives that may work better than vaccines and that are safer and less expensive.

4. The evidence shows that vaccines were actually counterproductive in some instances. Clearly, then, government should allow a conscientious exemption so that citizens can assess the merits of individual vaccines.

5. There are viable, proven alternatives to immunizations. Homeoprophylaxis is far less expensive, more effective, and safer with no risk of injury or death. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent injury or death, are more costly, and are of questionable efficacy when scrutinized objectively. Therefore, citizens should have the right to choose from among all of the available options. Absent this option, government is endorsing only one of many legitimate health care modalities, to the exclusive profit of one industry, thereby substantially interfering with the free market.

6. Where conflicts of interest exist with those setting policy, there is a moral and ethical imperative for citizens to have and retain the right to evaluate and disagree with the resulting policy. Immunization policy is driven by the very industry that manufactures the vaccines, and that industry routinely engages in criminal behavior. NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE REQUIRED TO USE PRODUCTS CREATED BY AN INDUSTRY THAT ROUTINELY ENGAGES
IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

7. Conscientious exemptions are time-tested. About 20 states representing a majority of the U.S. population currently have philosophical exemptions. If these exemptions caused serious problems, these exemption laws would have been repealed long ago. Clearly, philosophical exemptions have not created serious health problems, and if they ever should pose a problem, states retain the authority to impose emergency vaccines and/or quarantines as needed. A conscientious exemption poses no significant health threat to the state.

8. There is a growing body of lay persons and professionals, including credible medical professional and researchers, who are speaking out about problems with the conventional thinking on immunizations. There is a valid vaccine controversy. Given this reality, individuals should have and retain the right to make informed decisions.

9. Vaccines carry a risk of permanent injury and death. That risk may vary substantially from individual to individual, and the medical community has no gauge by which to assess that risk for healthy individuals. The herd immunity theory is flawed, so individual citizens cannot be said to have a responsibility to vaccinate for the sake of the community. Therefore, by definition, our democratic republic requires that citizens have the right to decide for themselves, as individuals, whether or not vaccines are right for them and their children.

In view of the above, and the scientific, legal, moral and ethical imperatives presented and supported therein, we respectfully request that the Honorable Senators and Representatives of this Great State support and pass the Bill adding an exemption from immunizations for conscientious beliefs.

1. For one of many sources, see Immunization Graphs at http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/d…

2. Dr. Greenberg went on to become the Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina.

3. Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, Second Session on H.R. 10541, May 1962, at 94.

4. The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences, section 7, Neil Z. Miller, Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

5. 2009 H1N1 Flu U.S. Situation Update, May 28, 2010, CDC, http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/

6. CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Cases and Related Hospitalizations and Deaths from April 2009 through April 10, 2010, By Age Group, http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/pdf/grap…

7. Flu Tracker, Rhiza Labs, http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/

8. Credited to Keith Block, M.D., Evanston, IL.

9. Testimony of Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., Before House Committee on Government Reform, April 6, 2000, http://www.whale.to/v/rimland.html

10. Testimony of Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder & President National Vaccine Information Center, U.S. House Government Reform Committee – August 3, 1999 “Vaccines: Finding a Balance Between Public Safety and Personal Choice”, http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fisher…

11. Associating vaccines and subsequent diseases, Meryl Nass, M.D., February 8, 2011, http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/…

12. Pennsylvania Bio Issues Patient Impact Report on Vaccines, More than 330 vaccines in development or on the market to prevent life-threatening diseases, Business Wire, November 4, 2010, http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho…

13. Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated adolescents and young adults. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 13(1):34-8, 1994 Jan.

14. Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and evaluation of a selective revaccination strategy. Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Ont. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 150(7):1093-8, 1994 Apr 1.

15. Haemophilus b disease after vaccination with Haemophilus b polysaccharide or conjugate vaccine. Institution Division of Bacterial Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md 20892. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 145(12):1379-82, 1991 Dec.

16. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. Division of Field Epidemiology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 169(1):77-82, 1994 Jan. 1.

17. Secondary measles vaccine failure in health care workers exposed to infected patients. Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 14(2):81-6, 1993 Feb.

18. MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) 38 (8-9), 12/29/89.

19. MMWR “Measles.” 1989; 38:329-330.

20. MMWR. 33(24),6/22/84.

21. Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Review article: 50 REFS. Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN. Archives of Internal Medicine. 154(16):1815-20, 1994 Aug 22.

22. Update: Mumps Outbreak – New York, New Jersey, June 2009 – January 2010, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), February 12, 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmw…

23. Many whooping cough victims have been immunized; Experts spar over prospects of new disease strain, Watchdog Institute, December 13, 2010, http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/20…

24. http://www.flucount.org

25. Successful Use of Homeopathy In Over 2.5 Million People Reported From Cuba, Official Homeopathy Resource, January 1, 2009, http://homeopathyresource.wordpress…

26. Dana Ullman, Discovering Homeopathy, at 42 (Thomas L. Bradford, Logic Figures, p68, 113-146; Coulter, Divided Legacy, Vol 3, p268)

27. Vitamin D better than vaccines at preventing flu, report claims, The Sunday Times (U.K.), March 15, 2010, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne… American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

28. The Truth About Vitamin D Toxicity, Vitamin D Council, http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vita…

29. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults, http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en…

30. Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong, Sharon Begley, Newsweek.com, January 24, 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmw…

31. Dr. Julie Gerberding Named President of Merck Vaccines, Merck Newsroom, December 21, 2009, http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-…

32. Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”, BMJ, June 3, 2010, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full…

33. Excerpts of remarks by Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal, during an exchange of views in Paris with PACE’s Health Committee on the handling of the H1N1 pandemic, 4 June 2010, http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDo…

34. WHO Identifies Conflicted Pandemic Panel Members, Pharmalot, August 11, 2010, http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/08/wh…

35. Medicines: corruption and pharmaceuticals, World Health Organization Website, Fact Sheet No. 335, December, 2009, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/fact…

36. Public Citizen Study:Pharmaceutical Indusry Is Biggest Defrauder of the Federal Government Under the False Claims Act, http://www.pharmpro.com/news/2010/1…

37. Jacobson v. Mass., 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

38. See, e.g., the International Medical Council on Vaccination at http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org, and The Pandemic Response Project, http://www.pandemicresponseproject.com

About the author:
Alan Phillips, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3473
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3473
919-960-5172
Vaccine Rights: http://www.vaccinerights.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031389_vaccines_philosophical_exemptions.html#ixzz1ENT3tRmo

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.