Posted on June 13, 2014 by Ken McMurtrie
From ‘Family Health Freedom Network ‘:
I am comfortable with promoting this article because it makes sense. The medical industry do not make public announcements refuting these allegations with scientific evidence that that they are incorrect. They simply persist in claiming safety, benefit to the majority, “herd immunity” and are unable to provide evidence to deny the allegations made.
Definitely worthy of a complete read and serious thought.
Medical health authorities, including doctors, nurses, and other members of the allopathic fraternity, employ a number of strategies designed to elicit parental submission to vaccine guidelines. Currently, parents are expected to grant authorities permission to toxify their children’s pure and sacred little bodies with more than 30 blends of rare germs, bacteria, and other foul substances — all before they enter school!
To adequately assess the relevance of vaccine-related news, or the perils of vaccine-related situations you may find yourself in — and to increase your knowledge about how to protect your loved ones — several of the more common vaccine-related schemes you’re likely to encounter are included in the following section, along with samples of each.
1. Calling the Shots “Immunizations.” Numerous studies indicate that vaccines cannot be relied upon to boost the immune system and protect an individual from contracting the disease the vaccines were designed to offset. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health reported 769 cases of mumps in school children. But 632 of these cases (82 percent) occurred in children who were previously vaccinated against this disease.(119) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 89 percent of all school-age children who recently contracted measles had been vaccinated against the disease.(120-122) And the New England Journal of Medicine published a study revealing that the pertussis vaccine “failed to give…protection against the disease.” In fact, more than 80 percent of cases in a recent epidemic occurred in children who had received regular doses of the shot.(123,124)
According to Dr. Sandra Huffman, head of Nurture: The Center to Prevent Childhood Malnutrition, “Increasing Americans’ breastfeeding rate would prevent more childhood diseases — and deaths — than [vaccination programs endorsed by the government].”(125) A distinction must therefore be made: breastfed babies are immunized; (126-128) children who are injected with germs and other toxic substances are vaccinated.
or link to the original article here .
Calling the shots “preventive medicine” is deceptive as well. According to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, pioneering author of Aerobics, “My concept of preventive medicine is trying to prevent the things that kill us. Infectious disease is way down the list.”(129) (Dr. Cooper was ostracized from the medical community for promoting exercise to improve health!)
2. Rationalization and Denial. Medical personnel find it difficult to confront the vaccine issue head-on. It is much easier to falsely justify the use of vaccines or simply reject the idea that they may be unsafe and ineffective. Some doctors become so agitated when the topic is raised, they refuse to even discuss it. Doctors who are willing to exchange ideas and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines often rely upon rationalization and denial.
The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, “In this article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will…offer some suggestions for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy.” He also plainly states, “A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of DTP-induced brain damage.”(130) He makes his recommendation in spite of the horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment.(131)
The veiled Rationalization and Denial ploy is harder to detect. At first it appears logical and sound. But it merely represents a more intricate attempt at suppressing and confounding the truth. For example, according to some researchers, the DPT vaccine does not cause seizures; instead, “fever from the DTP vaccine may trigger one of these seizures.”(132) Or, according to an experienced vaccine policymaker, Ed Mortimer, M.D., “These kids already had underlying problems and DTP was the first fever-producing insult that occurred to the child.”(133) Again, it wasn’t the vaccine that caused the brain damage; it was the fever from the vaccine.
More examples of the rationalization and denial ploy:
When the incidence of a disease is low, authorities claim high vaccination rates are responsible. When outbreaks occur, we are told not enough people received the shots. For example, prior to a recent measles outbreak in a Hobbs, New Mexico, school district, authorities boasted a 98 percent vaccination rate. Then, when 76 cases of the disease broke out, researchers claimed that “vaccine failure was associated with immunizations that could not be documented in the provider’s records.”(134)
Although the Food and Drug Administration was legally bound to establish and oversee the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and even though every year about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines are made to the FDA,(135) authorities refuse to follow up on these cases because “the agency could not possibly investigate each report,” and besides, “a cause and effect relationship is not presumed.”(136)
By November 10, 1999, the Vaccine Injury Compensation System had already paid out more than $1 billion to settle claims of vaccine-induced damage or death.(137) However, because vaccine manufacturers and the federal government are not required to admit responsibility, even when a claim is paid, they are able to assert that “the settlement of a claim does not necessarily establish liability.”(138)
3. Double Talk and Creative Logic. Medical advisers were using this ploy as far back as 1806. In that year Edward Jenner, the dubious “father of modern vaccinations,” was under examination by a College of Physicians committee. Numerous members of the English population who had recently been vaccinated with Jenner’s concoction, and who were therefore considered immune to smallpox, had caught the disease. Many were afflicted with painful skin eruptions and died. When the commonly relied upon denial ploy was no longer effective, it was revealed that “spurious,” or phony, cowpox was the cause. As the number of vaccinated people afflicted with the disease grew, so, too, did public fear. How, Jenner was asked, could spurious cowpox be identified and avoided? Spurious cowpox, he explained, wasn’t meant to describe irregularities on the part of the cow, but rather certain quirks in the action of cowpox on the part of the vaccinated. In other words, when the vaccinated recovered from the ordeal, and did not contract smallpox, the cowpox was genuine; otherwise it was spurious.(139)
Current uses of the double talk ploy may be found at almost any forum or seminar where vaccine policymakers congregate. For example, at a recent FDA workshop officials indicated they were justified in administering new and unproven vaccines by claiming it is unethical to withhold them!(140)
Here is another example of the “unethical” argument: A recent study found that the AIDS virus directly causes cancer. You’d think this would stifle the researchers’ goal of creating an AIDS vaccine. In fact, Gerald Myers, director of the HIV Sequence Database Analysis Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, warrants that a live vaccine would carry a risk of causing cancer — both in the vaccinated person and in their offspring. Nevertheless, he claims that “the risk might be worth it” to prevent the spread of AIDS. “It could be unethical not to try it.”(141)
A common use of the double talk and creative logic ploy may be found whenever health officials make the outrageous claim that unvaccinated children are a threat to the rest of society. This argument indicates how little faith authorities place in their own vaccines. If the vaccines were truly effective, only the unvaccinated would be at risk. This argument also overlooks the potential for vaccinated individuals to spread the virus to unvaccinated populations. For example, in separate scientific studies, the new rubella vaccine introduced in 1979 was found to be a cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, an immunological disorder first reported in the United States in 1982. Given to children, the vaccine was shown to linger in their systems for years and the vaccine virus can be passed on to adults through casual contact.(142-144)
In an attempt to conceal vaccine failures, medical authorities will often resort to the double talk ploy, sometimes in conjunction with the scare tactics ruse. In spite of their enterprising babble, however, they can’t always hoodwink the public. For example, the international Medical Observer states that “a new strain of measles resistant to vaccine” has been discovered. This is immediately contradicted by the statement: “Those who have been lax about vaccination will be unprotected.” Although the implication is that everyone should get vaccinated, a vaccine is obviously useless if a new strain of measles is resistant to it!(145)
More examples of the double talk ploy:
Scientists seeking human volunteers to test a new experimental AIDS vaccine try to assuage fear and mistrust by claiming there is “no evidence” it will cause AIDS. How could there be evidence? It is new and experimental and hasn’t been tested yet! And, of course, there is “no evidence” that it won’t cause AIDS.(146)
In an attempt to convince the public that vaccines offer the best of all worlds, medical researchers, and the journalists who quote them, often get tangled in their own webs of deception. For example, in a recently published pro-vaccine article, the author claims that unvaccinated children are susceptible to infection. He then contradicts himself by claiming that vaccinated children “insulate” or protect, the unvaccinated. The illogical implication is that when unvaccinated children contract an infectious disease it is because they are unvaccinated. However, if they remain free from disease, it is because the vaccinated are providing them with immunity.(147)
Every so often the double talk employed by authorities is so transparent it’s bewildering that so few people question its validity. In a recent promotional blitz, flu vaccine manufacturers and public health officials made the claim that the new and improved flu vaccine “is prepared from inactivated flu virus [Translation: "dead" flu virus -- see Euphemisms addressed below] and cannot cause the disease.” (A rare admission that earlier versions did cause the disease.) In the same paragraph they warn that “some individuals might develop a mild fever and feeling of malaise” for a few days after receiving the shot.(148) (Sounds like the flu to me!)
Other times the double talk employed by vaccine researchers is remarkably elaborate. Although it is a simple matter to determine the efficacy of a vaccine — give it to people who want it, withhold it from those who don’t, and tally the incidence of disease — some scientists have other ideas. One writes: “Under heterogeneity of vaccine effect, a general expression for a summary vaccine efficacy parameter is a function of the vaccine efficacy in the different vaccinated strata weighted by the fraction of the vaccinated subpopulations in each stratum. Interpretation and estimability of the summary vaccine efficacy parameter depends on whether the strata are identifiable, and whether the heterogeneity is host- or vaccine-related.” To support this garrulous babble, a full-page mathematical model is provided.(149)
A final look at the double talk and creative logic ploy yields the following revelations: children who keep to “appropriate” vaccine schedules are “protected,” unless they haven’t yet received the full battery of shots and contract the affliction — in which case they are evidently “still susceptible to the disease.”(150) In such instances the vaccine does not fail, or worse, cause the disease; these become “non-preventable” cases!(151)
- The “I Forgot to Mention” ploy is a common tactic used by health and medical authorities with an interest in omitting vital information. For example, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health supplied the Dayton Daily News with these statistics: 2,720 cases of measles were reported in Ohio during a recent year. This figure was used in conjunction with the godfather ploy (an offer hard to refuse) when the following threat was made as well: “Get shots or forget 7th grade.” What the official failed to mention was that more than 72 percent of these cases occurred in vaccinated people.(152) This figure is comparable to other outbreaks around the country, where a majority of measles cases often occur in vaccinated children, “sometimes in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent.”(153,154)
A concerned individual recounts her personal experience with the measles vaccine and the “I forgot to mention” ploy: “Fort Lewis College had a measles epidemic and the school closed down for a short time. The following year, I returned as a postgraduate for a teacher’s certificate and was denied reentry until I submitted to a measles vaccine — even though I had been fully vaccinated as a child. This fall I reentered Fort Lewis College, and they wanted me to get another measles shot! They told me the one I had already taken ‘didn’t work.’ I refused the shot and told them I was refusing all other shots as well. They replied, ‘Okay, just sign this waiver.’ No one ever tells you that the shots may be declined by signing a personal waiver.”(155)
Another example of the “I forgot to mention” ploy may be found in official evaluations of Reye’s Syndrome, an often fatal disease of the brain and liver. According to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, the CDC is “quick to suggest a relationship between [this childhood disease] and certain flu outbreaks,” but they make no mention of “an association between this disease and the flu vaccine itself.”(156)
5. Gimmicks. Devising strategies to boost vaccination rates is a prime preoccupation of vaccine policymakers. Without doubt, the gimmick ploy is a proven winner. In fact, the AMA recently admitted that “adult vaccines need a gimmick.”(157) CDC physicians recommend catchy slogans, like “Vaccines are not just kid stuff.”(158) Shari Lewis and her puppet, Lamb Chop, were seen delivering pro-vaccination messages to the public on TV.(159) Even Bill Clinton was seen in print ads imploring parents to be sure their children receive “All their shots while they’re tots.”(160)
6. Bribes. Within the same family of wily maneuvers, one may find the bribe ploy. For example, in England the National Health Service pays a “bonus” to doctors with vaccination rates above specified percentages.(161) Here in the United States, former president Jimmy Carter was seen on TV offering free Michael Jackson concert tickets to parents who agreed to vaccinate their children.(162) In Saginaw County, Michigan, children were promised “a free order of french fries” if they were one of the first thousand people to receive their shots.(163) And in Taos, New Mexico, “all students who return consent forms and receive vaccinations will be entered in raffles for great prizes!”(164)
7. Skewed Statistics. Researchers are trying to develop a new vaccine to combat respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — even though Dr. Bill Gary of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that “an RSV vaccine was developed 10 to 15 years ago, but was unsuccessful and made many people ill.” To foster interest in this obscure project, and to improve the illusion that we need the vaccine, a recent report released by the CDC indicates that “about half” of the 69 labs that track diseases for the agency reported a 16 percent increase in RSV cases.(165) Stating “about half” is deceptively vague, and choosing not to list the percent increase or decrease of RSV cases in the other “about half” of the 69 labs is manipulative and dishonest.
Another good example of the skewed statistics ploy came from the Clinton administration. Goaded by the medical community, federal authorities announced their dubious goal to vaccinate all U.S. children. To accomplish this feat, Clinton sought $300 million from Congress. To bolster his case he made the bogus claim that “we can prevent the worst infectious diseases of children with vaccines and save $10 for every $1 invested.”(166) But he failed to supply facts and figures to support his claim. Perhaps this was because the administration chose instead to invoke the “I forgot to mention” ploy, conveniently neglecting to factor in the millions of dollars the government had already spent compensating families of children damaged or killed by the vaccines.(167)
A further example of the skewed statistics ploy:
The use of control subjects (individuals utilized as a standard of comparison for verifying the results of an experiment) is an established procedure in most fields of scientific inquiry. Not so within the vaccine research community. New experimental vaccines that are tested on a group of people are rarely matched against an equal number of untested people. Indeed, after a new AIDS vaccine was tested on hundreds of people, some of the volunteers were found to be infected with HIV. However, because the number of control subjects was suspiciously small (38 people) — and therefore worthless — the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was able to claim “there is no statistical basis for concluding that the vaccine has contributed to an increased vulnerability to infection.”(168)
- The Fraud ploy has proven to be an early and consistent success. In 1956, soon after the Salk polio vaccine was introduced, officials decided to determine how safe and effective it really was. The results of this study — the now infamous Francis Field Trials — would help determine the feasibility of continuing to vaccinate millions of young children. What they discovered would have stopped most ethical people from continuing: large numbers of children were contracting polio after receiving the vaccine. Clearly, the vaccine was either unsafe (it was causing the disease it was meant to prevent) or ineffective (it failed to protect). Instead of removing the vaccine from the market, however, officials decided to exclude from the statistics all cases of polio that occurred within 30 days after vaccination on the pretext that such cases were “pre-existing.”(169,170)
The NIH, an influential branch of the vaccine oligarchy, was recently placed under investigation for interfering with charges of scientific fraud within its own ranks. According to a New York Times report, Walter W. Stewart and Dr. Ned Feder, scientific fraud investigators for the NIH, were summarily dismissed from their duties following the release of a report critical of other NIH scientists. Without warning their offices were closed and sealed, along with all the files of current investigations. The two scientists were then transferred to jobs unrelated to their work of previous years. This incident reveals how studies and reports critical of official dogma may be suppressed, and highlights “the continuing ethical battles over how government and universities should monitor scientists.”(171)
9. Fortune-telling. When medical and health authorities are at a loss to explain the cause of injury and death that occurs soon after a childhood shot, and denial is insufficient, they may resort to the fortune-telling ploy. In fact, the FDA’s official position is that “the ‘event’ [Translation: adverse reaction to a vaccine -- see the Euphemism ploy] may have been related to an underlying disease or condition…or may have occurred by chance at the same time the vaccine was administered.” In other words, the child was destined to be damaged or die at the time of the shot anyway.(172)
The past director of the Ohio Department of Health, and other vaccine authorities, label vaccine-induced injury or death as “only temporal.: Once again, this translates to mean the damage was coincidental; it would have occurred anyway.(173)
More examples of the fortune-telling ploy:
“Bad Flu Season Forecast” blared the headlines. “A severe flu season is at hand; get flu shots right away.”(174) Who are these doomsday prophets, and where do they get their psychic news?
According to the U.S. government’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the efficacy of a flu vaccine depends upon whether the government has correctly “predicted” [Translation: guessed] which viruses should be placed in that year’s vaccine. There has to be a “good match” between the flu virus actually present in the community at the end of the year and the vaccine that was produced several months earlier.(175)
10. “Pardon Me.” Medical institutions wary of vaccine reactions often protect their members by enforcing the “pardon me” rule, exempting doctors from their own regulations. For example, in Evanston, Illinois, a 46-year-old social worker was fired from her job when she refused to take a rubella shot. Hospital policy requires all employees –except physicians – to be vaccinated against rubella. Doctors are not considered “employees.”(176)
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that obstetrician-gynecologists are the least likely of all doctors to submit to the rubella vaccine. Fewer than 10 percent are inoculated, and blood tests indicate they are susceptible to rubella. The researchers conclude that a “fear of unforeseen vaccine reactions” lead these specialists to invoke their self-exempting “pardon me” rule.(177)
Some doctors refuse to vaccinate their own children as well. According to Dr. Jerome Murphy, former head of Pediatric Neurology at Milwaukee Children’s Hospital, “There is just overwhelming data that there’s an association [between the pertussis vaccine and seizures]. I know it has influenced many pediatric neurologists not to have their own children immunized with pertussis.”(178)
The FDA recently lost an important legal battle when they permitted the live virus polio vaccine, manufactured by Lederle Labs, to be released to the public even though it did not meet existing safety standards. As a result, several people were severely damaged. After losing the U.S. Supreme Court case, the FDA immediately implemented the “pardon me” ploy, and rewrote its safety procedures so that previously unacceptable safety measures would be allowable. Consequently, Lederle can continue to produce and the FDA can continue to sanction the same kind of polio vaccine that caused injuries in the first place.(179)
11. Delusions of Grandeur. Doctors, medical scientists, allopathic policymakers, and vaccine manufacturers, are prone to experience delusions of grandeur. This occurs whenever they take credit for a drop in nearly every communicable disease. But a greater than 95 percent decline in the incidence and severity of many of these diseases already occurred before the introduction of the vaccines. Such conceit also disregards the many diseases — like scarlet fever and the plague — that declined on their own, even though vaccines were not developed against them.(180)
Health officials claim high vaccination rates are required to disrupt the spread of a disease and eliminate its occurrence. For example, they take full credit — delusions of grandeur — for the current low incidence of polio in the United States. However, in many European countries that refused to mandate polio vaccines a fraction of the people were vaccinated, and polio disappeared.181 To explain this enigma, officials rely upon the double talk and creative logic ploy: evidently enough people were vaccinated “to interrupt the virus’s normal lines of transmission through the population.” Yet, countries like Finland used the killed-virus vaccine, which officials do not credit with the ability to confer immunity upon the unvaccinated!(182)
More recently, Finland has claimed to have “eradicated” measles, mumps, and rubella — even though only 30 percent of the people were vaccinated. Also, although researchers claim these diseases were “eradicated,” they note that there are about “ten cases of each disease a year, most of them ‘probably imported’ [from another country].”(183)
Vaccine policymakers promised that by 1982 measles would be eradicated from the Earth�delusions of grandeur.184 Today, in the 1990s, it has returned with a vengeance. The death rate for measles is more than 20 times higher than before the vaccine was in widespread use.(185)
Medical policymakers are unrelenting in their efforts to play God. After realizing “the number of visits to a healthcare provider [for vaccines] is an impediment” to receiving the entire battery of shots, they proposed the development of a single vaccine to provide “lifelong immunization” against many common childhood diseases. They call this single shot a “supervaccine” or “magic bullet” and have lobbied Congress for funds to continue research along these lines.(186) When we consider the medical community’s inability to provide lifelong immunity against a single disease, their dismal success rate with current multiple vaccines (DPT and MMR), and the number of vaccine-related injury and death claims clogging the courts, this latest “mad science” venture clearly demonstrates their wicked propensity toward delusions of grandeur.
12. Surprise Attack. Parents often report they are harassed by medical personnel wishing to vaccinate their children even when they visit their medical health care provider for other reasons. In fact, some doctors appear to be so obsessed with the vaccination status of their clients that they disregard the stated purpose of the visit. Therefore, anticipate the surprise attack.
The surprise attack is actually taught to members of the medical fraternity, as noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Each encounter with a health care provider, including an emergency department visit or hospitalization, is an opportunity to screen immunization status and, if indicated, administer needed vaccines. Before discharge from the hospital, children should receive immunizations for which they are eligible. In addition, children accompanying parents or siblings who are seeking any service should also be screened and, when indicated, given needed vaccines.”(187)
The consequences of being unprepared for the surprise attack can be severe indeed. The Jonathan story published elsewhere on this site illustrates one parent’s reaction to being ambushed by the medical profession.
Another concerned mother describes her surprise attack in these words:
“My husband and I chose a midwife and had a homebirth, which was wonderful. The midwife insisted that I take our daughter to a local pediatrician for a newborn exam…. The reason I’m telling you this is because we were treated like trash. I was told that a homebirth is an automatic ‘red flag.’ The doctor reported us to Social Services, and we were subjected to a painful interrogation. I was [also] interrogated as to my beliefs about immunizations. My daughter was only two weeks old…and yet they wanted to inject her with multiple vaccines.
“How can I find a doctor for my daughter? I do not want to repeat this horrible experience…for fear Social Services will again be sent to investigate us because we don’t take our daughter to doctors for regular ‘well-baby’ checkups, which is really a ploy to force vaccines on innocent babies and unsuspecting parents.”(188)
13. Intimidation and Coercion. Doctors often claim vaccines are mandatory. Many threaten to withhold treatment, or they frighten parents when they reject the shots. As one mother puts it: “The pediatrician I have refused to service me because I am not willing to follow medical ‘rules.’ Another M.D. agreed to work with me, but only after I listened to him warn me [in very explicit terms, about all the dangers that could happen to my child.]“(189)
Another mother writes: “I am a concerned parent who has not vaccinated my 13 month old. I am met by my baby doctor in a critical and almost attacking nature. There seems to be no room in his mind-set for a choice on this issue.”(190)
Putting this in clearer perspective, another mother writes: “I am an Australian citizen [living in the United States]. I never realized what an issue [vaccinations are] in this country until I had my own children, and how much pressure the medical world puts on you, and above all else, how much clout the schools have. I really don’t know of any other country that makes this into such a difficult decision, and so one-sided in regard to information. Where I’m from, you either do, or you don’t, immunize. The question is asked, the decision made, and that’s it forever, unless you change your mind! Incidentally, a large majority [of parents in Australia] do not immunize [their children], and we don’t have a higher incidence [of disease] than in the U.S.”(191)
Note: The United States has one of the worst infant mortality rates among developed countries. In fact, the rate at which babies die in the first year of life has consistently increased since the 1950s when mass immunization campaigns were initiated. Today, infant mortality rates in some U.S. cities match those in developing countries.(192)
Public school officials — the unwitting henchmen for the medical profession — often warn parents their children will not be able to enter school without complying with vaccine mandates. Each state, however, offers one or more exemptions to the shots. In spite of these exemptions, one mother was told by authorities that she would need to write a letter explaining why her son was not vaccinated,and that she would accept full responsibility for any epidemics that occurred while her child was enrolled at the school!(193)
A concerned father tells this story: “I applied for religious exemption for my son at his public school in Totowa, New Jersey. The school nurse reported the exemption to the Board of Health. The New Jersey State Immunization Supervisor then sent a letter to the school principal. In it he stated that my letter of exemption was ‘not good enough,’ and that my son is not to be admitted into the school building at all. The school principal wrote me a letter confirming that my son would not be permitted to enter school, and threatened that `I had better begin immunizing’ my son. I must meet the August deadline to register my son for school, but they won’t even let him in the building. Time is running out, and my son’s education is being denied.”(194)
Note: This story is often told by parents throughout the nation. Evidently, state laws are immaterial to authorities intent upon using the intimidation and coercion ploy to deny parents their legal rights. For example, a clause in the New Jersey State Sanitary Code, Chapter 26:1A-9.1, allows for “exemption for pupils from mandatory immunization if the parent or guardian objects thereto in a written statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the ground that the proposed immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupil’s religious rights.”
An apprehensive California mother reports that when her child was rushed to the hospital emergency room for a minor mishap, medical personnel were more interested in the child’s vaccination status than in the nature of her injury [the surprise attack]. Upon learning the child was not “up-to-date” on her shots, they refused to release the child to her mother until she gave her permission for the shots to be administered. When she refused, these doctors reported her to Social Services, claiming she was “abusing her child.” Soon thereafter the State Attorney General joined in the case and sought to prosecute the mother –even though the vaccine laws in her state permit parents the option to refuse vaccines based on personal convictions against them!(195)
Many parents report that doctors and nurses are intimidating them into vaccinating their newborns immediately after birth. One mother reports: “The very first time I heard about the hepatitis B vaccine was at the hospital after giving birth to my second child. They told me all babies must receive this vaccine before they can be released from the hospital. Needless to say, I refused it, although they persisted in badgering me. Later, when I took my baby to the pediatrician for her two-week checkup, he tried to frighten me into giving her the shot. He said hepatitis is very contagious and my child could easily catch it from other kids or infected adults. When I told him that I didn’t feel right about giving the vaccine to my infant, he informed me that I would need to find another doctor because he would not treat my baby.”(196)
On November 20, 1993, a nationally syndicated prime-time TV news magazine, The Crusaders, aired a gutsy show on the dangers of the DPT vaccine. Parents of vaccine-damaged children were interviewed, and rare, emotionally wrenching footage of their severely disabled children was shown. While most of the American medical community denies a link between the shots and brain damage or death, listeners heard vaccine expert Dr. Michael Pakickero warn parents that some batches of the DPT vaccine are more toxic than others. And, Dr. John Menkis, the former head of pediatrics and neurology at UCLA, candidly acknowledged, “You will have permanent, irreversible brain damage, which was not present before [DPT] vaccination.” Meanwhile, Michael Settonni, the show’s premier research journalist, estimated from government sources that “at least two children are reportedly killed or injured by the vaccine every day.”(197)
A few days after this show aired, Mr. John Butte, executive producer of The Crusaders, received a scathing letter from Thomas Balbier, Jr., Director of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), demanding a retraction. He asserted that the number of current vaccine injury and death claims filed by parents during the past few years represent claims of damage “for virtually the entire 20th century.” He also blasted the show for directing listeners to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) – a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving vaccine safety and supporting a parent’s right to choose for or against vaccines. He claimed that NVIC is “not sanctioned” by the federal government, and therefore is “not the official spokesperson” for information on vaccine safety. He also made what appeared to be a veiled threat by noting that copies of his letter were being sent to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.(198)
Note: On January 8, 1994, The Crusaders aired a retraction by quoting the medical industry’s most cherished — and fraudulent — data on the DPT vaccine: a controversial study conducted in Great Britain during the 1950s. Even though 42 of the babies in the study had convulsions within 28 days of receiving the shots, 80 percent of the babies were 14 months of age or older, and the tests were designed to test the efficacy (not safety) of the vaccine, U.S. health authorities still use these results as evidence that the vaccine is safe to give to babies as young as six weeks of age.199 Obviously, the intimidation and coercion ploy was, once again, a wicked success.
On March 19, 1992, Rolling Stone magazine published a remarkable story documenting potential correlations between the first polio vaccines and AIDS. Many independent researchers considered the expos� forthright and extraordinarily well investigated. Several months later, however, the magazine printed a half-page “clarification” indicating that any connection between early polio vaccines and AIDS is “one of several disputed and unproven theories.”200 Evidently, future vaccination campaigns and scientific reputations were jeopardized by the original story.
More examples of the intimidation and coercion ploy:
An Ohio woman with two children killed by the DPT vaccine received threatening letters from the Ohio Department of Health informing her that her only surviving child had to be vaccinated.201 A grieving mother whose baby died 17 hours after receiving a DPT shot was threatened with losing her WIC benefits for refusing to vaccinate her other children.(202)
A Kansas mother who objected to the vaccines was told that the state would seize her child, force the vaccinations upon her, and place her in a foster home. The child was vaccinated and is now permanently disabled as a result of the shot.(203)
This final example of the intimidation and coercion ploy clearly illustrates the arrogant and insensitive nature of the medical community. Grieving and dejected parents who personally contact theVaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to report how their child was damaged or killed by a vaccine should be forewarned to expect an envelope in the mail with the following bold red letters emblazoned across the front: IMMUNIZE EARLY!(204)
14. The Godfather ploy is an extreme variation of the intimidation and coercion maneuver. It may involve blackmail. For example, poor mothers on state aid in Maryland must now get their children vaccinated or the state will take $25 from their monthly welfare checks for every preschool child not up to date on shots and checkups. A family sanctioned for three months will receive a call from a social service worker, who will request to visit the home to “help resolve the situation and any other problems.” Whereas child advocate groups claim Maryland’s new law is punitive and unfair, the state’s human resources secretary argues that “many [of these welfare recipients] just needed a push to do what is expected of them as responsible parents.”(205)
Here is another example of the godfather ploy: Health insurance companies are threatening to cancel policies when parents refuse vaccines for their children — unless parents sign a form absolving the insurance company from liability if the child contracts certain diseases.(206)
An extreme version of the godfather ploy — framing the parents — is now being reported with increasing regularity by frantic family members. Apparently, medical personnel intent on maintaining the vaccine deception will do anything to deflect blame. Moms and dads who are still grieving over their dead babies following the shots, are now being charged with homicide. For example, one mother, whose healthy baby died just 2 days after receiving DPT and MMR vaccines, was so outraged at this government sanctioned criminal activity, that she tried to fight back with a lawsuit. Authorities responded by charging her with the murder of her child.(207)