Forced Vaccination

What are your opinions on the article below?

Samantha in Oklahoma



www.forcedvaccination.com



Forced Vaccination

By Michael Manley



Are you aware that 30 percent of doctors in the U.S. do not vaccinate their
children and that number is as high as 60 percent in other countries around
the world? Are you aware that some countries do not even allow children to
be vaccinated until they are at least two years old because of their
immature immune systems? Are you aware that most vaccinations contain
thimerosal, which is so dangerous that if the same amount of thimerosal the
average child receives before age two (directly into his bloodstream) were
to be dropped into twenty-three gallons of water that it would be considered
unsafe for human consumption according to the EPA? And are you aware that
the Hepatitis B vaccine causes genetic changes? Were you ever told that
some vaccines contain tissue from aborted fetuses?

Let me ask you a very personal question. Do you have the right to raise
your own child, or should a doctor, judge or social services decide what is
best for him? What is the true story about vaccinations? That is something
you will have to conclude for yourself. Now let me tell you my story.

I thought I was living in a free country until the evening of April 3, 2003
when my child was given a harmful vaccination against the wishes of my wife
and me in the city of Grand Junction, Colorado. Inaccurate screening test
results on my wife led the neonatologist to believe that my wife had
hepatitis B. As he believed there was a high risk of transmission to our
child during birth, he urged us to allow him to inoculate our newborn with
the hepatitis B vaccine. Knowing the dangers vaccinations pose, especially
to newborns with immature immune systems, we repeatedly refused to authorize
the doctor to administer the vaccine. We stood firm on the grounds that we
could not in good conscience abdicate our God given role to protect our
child from medical treatment known to be harmful and dangerous. After
threats by hospital social worker Joni Vohs that we could lose custody of
our child if we did not comply, we found ourselves in an after-hours mock
hearing at St. Mary's Hospital, denied the right to procure any sort of
competent defense.

Just the day before, my wife had given birth to our first child. We were
allowed fifteen minutes notice of the hearing about to take place at the
hospital. The judge and lawyers were already present at the hospital before
we were notified. District Court Judge Charles Buss repeatedly denied our
plea to postpone the hearing until the next day to allow us time to present
specific evidence to support our position. The neonatal physician, Dr. Noel
Carrasco, was declared an expert witness and led the judge to believe that
little or no risks were posed to our baby by administering the vaccine.
Further, the judge was persuaded that waiting for a second confirmatory test
on my wife (to arrive the next day) could reduce the effectiveness of the
vaccine enough to warrant giving it immediately without waiting for further
testing or even a proper medical diagnosis. Meanwhile the President/CEO of
St. Mary's Hospital, Robert Ladenburger, stood by and watched as all these
events were transpiring. He did nothing to stop them. My request to him
for an opportunity to meet with him to appeal the decisions and actions
being implemented was unmet, due to the "emergency" nature of the hearing.

In spite of our short notice of the hearing, we were able to obtain specific
information about the inaccuracy and unreliability of the screening tests.
This evidence was presented to the judge but disregarded in light of the
doctor's "expert opinion". By court order, our daughter was given the shot.
Charges of Dependency and Neglect were ordered by the judge to be filed
against us. We became prisoners in our own town as we were ordered not to
leave the county without approval by the court.

When we finally received the court order a week later, it stated that the
court found by "clear and convincing evidence" that my wife had hepatitis B,
and thus the court had to intervene because of the risks posed to the child.
I would like to know what this evidence was, since the only test that had
been presented was a screening test that says on its face: "This test using
the DPC 2000 HbsAg assay is for screening purposes only. All positive and
indeterminate results will be confirmed by another method." The more
accurate test did arrive and proved that my wife did not have hepatitis B,
as did the independent tests we had run at another hospital. There was
never a proper diagnosis by a qualified physician!

If that was not enough, gross disrespect was shown to us from the moment we
arrived at the hospital until after we left. Our rights as parents to make
decisions regarding the care of our child were repeatedly denied as tests
and treatments were given to both my wife and child without our
authorization, many times against our clear instructions to the hospital
staff.

This is not a story from some far off corner of the world. This happened
right here in "the land of the free." Our "limited" government believed
they knew how to raise our child better than her God given parents. Her
life was put in danger while the objections of her parents who had spent
countless hours researching and seeking God to determine what is best for
their child were completely disregarded.



In closing, please consider these questions:



1.Who defines what a life threatening situation is (the law leaves this term

undefined)?



2. What is being done to comfort the families whose children have suffered

from autism, learning disabilities, immunological disorders and even death
resulting from these dangerous injections?


3. Are we as parents, complacently willing to entrust the health and safety
of

our children to the powers that be? Or will we do our homework, and
research the facts that hard science presents, enabling us to make informed
decisions?



4. Who will be next, and what will be inflicted on them?



5. What other freedoms will be taken away from the family in the near

future?



Today we witness diverse attacks upon our children, including damaging
vaccinations. A forced vaccination is an abominable assault on our precious
child and a usurpation of God given parental rights and responsibilities.
We as Christians should "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). Our
"children are an heritage of the LORD" (Psalms 127:3).





For more information, please check out our site at www.forcedvaccination.com

DamnOkie wrote:
What are your opinions on the article below?

If the first person experience reported is true, it is unfortunate.
However, I wouldn't take any of the rest of the information in
the article as factual.

Are you aware that 30 percent of doctors in the U.S. do not vaccinate their
children and that number is as high as 60 percent in other countries around
the world?

He doesn't give any reference for these figures, and I find them
completely implausible.


Are you aware that some countries do not even allow children to
be vaccinated until they are at least two years old because of their
immature immune systems? Are you aware that most vaccinations contain
thimerosal, which is so dangerous that if the same amount of thimerosal the
average child receives before age two (directly into his bloodstream) were
to be dropped into twenty-three gallons of water that it would be considered
unsafe for human consumption according to the EPA? And are you aware that

Childhood vaccines no longer contain thimerosal, and haven't for
a few years now.

This guy does not have much credibility.

Emily
--
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

I have no idea when this article was actually written.

It may have been when vaccinations still contained Thimerosal.

What do you personally think about not vaccinating by choice ?

Samantha

"Emily" wrote in message
...
DamnOkie wrote:
What are your opinions on the article below?

If the first person experience reported is true, it is unfortunate.
However, I wouldn't take any of the rest of the information in
the article as factual.

Are you aware that 30 percent of doctors in the U.S. do not vaccinate
their children and that number is as high as 60 percent in other
countries around the world?

He doesn't give any reference for these figures, and I find them
completely implausible.


Are you aware that some countries do not even allow children to be
vaccinated until they are at least two years old because of their
immature immune systems? Are you aware that most vaccinations contain
thimerosal, which is so dangerous that if the same amount of thimerosal
the average child receives before age two (directly into his bloodstream)
were to be dropped into twenty-three gallons of water that it would be
considered unsafe for human consumption according to the EPA? And are
you aware that

Childhood vaccines no longer contain thimerosal, and haven't for
a few years now.

This guy does not have much credibility.

Emily
--
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

DamnOkie wrote:
I have no idea when this article was actually written.

It may have been when vaccinations still contained Thimerosal.

I couldn't quickly turn up the date past which all pediatric
vaccines (with the exception of some kinds of flu vaccine)
no longer contained thimerosal. Even if he had his facts straight
on that point, the other claims (fetal remains in vaccines,
30% of MDs not vaccinating their own children) strike me as
outlandish. Without references backing them up (that I can
go verify), I'm just not going to believe it.

What do you personally think about not vaccinating by choice ?

Personally, having looked into it to some extent, I feel that
the risks of *not* vaccinating outweigh any potential risks
of vaccinating. DS has had all his vaccines on schedule,
and we will do the same for the next baby. That said, I also
respect the fact that parents can look into the same information
and make the other choice. I don't like the idea of people reading
poorly researched propaganda and getting scared off of vaccines,
however.

--
Emily
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

Well as far as the article, I think all views, or in your words Propaganda,
should be publicized so that people can make their own decisions about any
subject.

I don't believe in censorship for adults.

Samantha

"Emily" wrote in message
...
DamnOkie wrote:
I have no idea when this article was actually written.

It may have been when vaccinations still contained Thimerosal.

I couldn't quickly turn up the date past which all pediatric
vaccines (with the exception of some kinds of flu vaccine)
no longer contained thimerosal. Even if he had his facts straight
on that point, the other claims (fetal remains in vaccines,
30% of MDs not vaccinating their own children) strike me as
outlandish. Without references backing them up (that I can
go verify), I'm just not going to believe it.

What do you personally think about not vaccinating by choice ?

Personally, having looked into it to some extent, I feel that
the risks of *not* vaccinating outweigh any potential risks
of vaccinating. DS has had all his vaccines on schedule,
and we will do the same for the next baby. That said, I also
respect the fact that parents can look into the same information
and make the other choice. I don't like the idea of people reading
poorly researched propaganda and getting scared off of vaccines,
however.

--
Emily
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

DamnOkie wrote:
Well as far as the article, I think all views, or in your words Propaganda,
should be publicized so that people can make their own decisions about any
subject.

I don't believe in censorship for adults.

I don't believe in censorship either. What I lament is that our
educational system isn't up to the task of giving all parents the
critical reading/critical thinking skills they need to navigate
and evaluate the various kinds of information they receive. We
all need to be informed consumers when it comes to medical care
(among other important decisions), but we are not all prepared to
do so.

There can be propaganda on both sides: Anything that seeks to
convince people by appealing to emotions and without situating itself
honestly and appropriately in the context of serious scholarship
is a kind of propaganda.

As for the point that "all opinions should be publicized", I agree
that freedom of speech/freedom of the press is important to democracy
(as well as many other things). That said, just because there are
some people who disagree doesn't automatically mean that both opinions
are equally valid, or should be given equal time in the media. On
that point, (and at the risk of having this thread drift onto another
controversial topic), here's a recent column by Jon Carroll (of the
San Francisco _Chronicle_): http://tinyurl.com/72u3x

Similar points can be made about the debate over global warming.
I'm not saying that the vaccination question is necessarily in a similar
class as these two issues ("Intelligent Design" v. evolution and global
warming), just that they are two clear (to me) examples where the
quality of information presented by each side is vastly different.

--
Emily
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

"Emily" wrote in message
...
DamnOkie wrote:
Well as far as the article, I think all views, or in your words
Propaganda, should be publicized so that people can make their own
decisions about any subject.

I don't believe in censorship for adults.

I don't believe in censorship either. What I lament is that our
educational system isn't up to the task of giving all parents the
critical reading/critical thinking skills they need to navigate
and evaluate the various kinds of information they receive. We
all need to be informed consumers when it comes to medical care
(among other important decisions), but we are not all prepared to
do so.

There can be propaganda on both sides: Anything that seeks to
convince people by appealing to emotions and without situating itself
honestly and appropriately in the context of serious scholarship
is a kind of propaganda.

As for the point that "all opinions should be publicized", I agree
that freedom of speech/freedom of the press is important to democracy
(as well as many other things). That said, just because there are
some people who disagree doesn't automatically mean that both opinions
are equally valid, or should be given equal time in the media. On
that point, (and at the risk of having this thread drift onto another
controversial topic), here's a recent column by Jon Carroll (of the
San Francisco _Chronicle_): http://tinyurl.com/72u3x

Similar points can be made about the debate over global warming.
I'm not saying that the vaccination question is necessarily in a similar
class as these two issues ("Intelligent Design" v. evolution and global
warming), just that they are two clear (to me) examples where the
quality of information presented by each side is vastly different.




I completely agree with everything that Emily has said in this whole thread.

I don't believe in censorship either, but do believe in limiting bad or
incorrect information. Perhaps everything he wrote was true in 2003, but
without sites to back up his claims, I don't put a lot of stock into the
"article." I think it is written in a very sensationalistic/controversial
and trolling way.

Regardless, the themerosal issue isn't true now. If he was misinformed at
the time, then he made a decision based on incorrect information, and now is
encouraging other people to do the same. If he was not misinformed at the
time, his information is no longer accurate now anyway, so the peice needs
to be rewritten to be accurate. But, as Emily said, without sites to back
up his claims, I think it's a load of sensationalistic hooey. It's not the
topic per se that is making me react this way, it's the writing style. It
gets my hackles up.

I do not think all views should be publicized. That's just stupid. There
are a lot of wackos out there in the world, who rant on and on with no facts
to back them up. Not about whether or not to vaccinate in particular,
although there are some in that topic as well as many others.

I vaccinated both of my kids. In my state, when you adopt, you have to
promise to love, honor, cherish, care for, and vaccinate on schedule. I'm
not joking. So I did, but I would have anyway. People are so quick to
think that THEIR kid doesn't need vaccination A or B, because there hasn't
been a case of A or B in many many years, or that they won't come in contact
with anything risky. But what about the other kids, who also may not have
been vaccinated? And I'm not sure if they remember how many kids died from
things that don't kill kids today, because we HAVE been vaccinating for 40+
years. Or the fact that if one or two kids aren't vaccinated, it's probably
not a big deal, but if lots of people start not vaccinating their kids, they
are risking bringing back these childhood diseases that have been all but
eradicated.

If you or anyone else does the research, of serious medical or scientific
journals, not sensationalistic propaganda, and talks to their pediatrician,
and decides not to vaccinate their kids, I got no problem with that. But if
someone reads an "article" like the one you posted, takes it at face value,
and decides not to vaccinate their kids, well, I think that's a bad thing.
Information is key. What this guy wrote is not information, it's just an
anecdote.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

in article , Emily at
wrote on 9/10/05 9:22 PM:

DamnOkie wrote:
Well as far as the article, I think all views, or in your words Propaganda,
should be publicized so that people can make their own decisions about any
subject.

I don't believe in censorship for adults.

I don't believe in censorship either. What I lament is that our
educational system isn't up to the task of giving all parents the
critical reading/critical thinking skills they need to navigate
and evaluate the various kinds of information they receive. We
all need to be informed consumers when it comes to medical care
(among other important decisions), but we are not all prepared to
do so.

There can be propaganda on both sides: Anything that seeks to
convince people by appealing to emotions and without situating itself
honestly and appropriately in the context of serious scholarship
is a kind of propaganda.

As for the point that "all opinions should be publicized", I agree
that freedom of speech/freedom of the press is important to democracy
(as well as many other things). That said, just because there are
some people who disagree doesn't automatically mean that both opinions
are equally valid, or should be given equal time in the media. On
that point, (and at the risk of having this thread drift onto another
controversial topic), here's a recent column by Jon Carroll (of the
San Francisco _Chronicle_): http://tinyurl.com/72u3x

Similar points can be made about the debate over global warming.
I'm not saying that the vaccination question is necessarily in a similar
class as these two issues ("Intelligent Design" v. evolution and global
warming), just that they are two clear (to me) examples where the
quality of information presented by each side is vastly different.

--
Emily
DS 5/02
EDD 5 days ago

Emily,

I would say only that the AUTHORITY of each side is vastly different.

Both sides seem to me to be offering sensationalism - with medical
sensationalism being more generally believed because it is put forth by
AUTHORITY.

For example, I myself believed the HIV/AIDS hypothesis put forth by
authorities called American MDs - until I observed American MD authoritiies
using the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison after I discovered their
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. See below.

Also bizarre, CDC's National Immunization [sic] Program is silent about the
fact that BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS are immunizers who manufacture specific
immunizations and administer the vast majority of immunizations their
children will receive.

CDC is silent about this even though it is thought that breastfeedings (free
daily immunizations) make MD-needle vaccinations work better!

CDC's National Immunization [sic] Program has hijacked the power word
immunization. MD-needle vaccinations are only ATTEMPTED immunizations being
fraudulently promoted as being 100% effective in the obviously fraudulent
"disease outbreak" spiel ("your kids will have to stay at home") heard by
parents seeking vaccine exemptions for their children....

See below.

Todd



(Below is a substantial excerpt of my reply to Steve B. Harris, MD regarding
hepB vaccination.)

Three medical physicians [Ganiats et al. 1993] concluded that hepatitis B
vaccination failed four of five criteria - criteria which, according to
Frame [1986], must be satisfied before a preventive measure is accepted as a
public health measure. *[Ganiats et al. Universal neonatal hepatitis B
immunization - are we jumping on the bandwagon too early? J Fam Prac
1993;36(2):144-9. *Citing Frame PS. A critical review of health
maintenance... J Fam Pract *1986;22:341-6.]

Ganiats et al. [1993] concluded that up to 37,000 vaccinations are needed to
prevent one case of hepatitis B carrier state....

Since hepatitis B carrier state ostensibly can lead to hepatocellular
carcinoma, Ganiats et al. [1993] noted ("for those who believe that
hepatocellular carcinoma is a valid rationale") that up to 6 million
vaccinations are necessary to prevent one case of hepatocellular
carcinoma....

Have the numbers changed since Ganiats et al. published in 1993?

and so the study would
need to be a run a very long one.

MDs rushed in to declare that Hep B vaccine prevents cancer.

Neither CDC nor WHO have gotten back to me regarding my request that
they stop DISHONESTLY promoting hep B vaccination as having "demonstrated
important benefits including the prevention of cirrhosis and cancer..."
http://www.who.int/gpv-safety/hottop/hepb.htm --URL no good anymore

Very occasionally one sees in
children, and the rates of this have declined a great deal in countries
like Taiwan where vaccination was instituted first.

Steve, you simply ignored the fact that researchers reported that African
children weren't showing symptoms of Hep B disease.

How do you account for that? *Did children in Taiwan show symptoms of Hep B
disease?

The campaign to show that Hep B virus causes cancer seems as strange as the
campaign to show that HIV causes a new disease called "AIDS."

Can it be possible that the Taiwanese children who were jabbed with Hep B
vaccine did not really need to be jabbed?

Can it be possible that the Africans who recently had their penises sliced
did not really need to endure the penile slicing?

In regard to the latter, it may be that MDs are slicing ADULT penises in
Africa to help cover-up their mass INFANT penis ripping and slicing crime
here in America....

See UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3776

I'm still wondering about CDC (and WHO) minimizing the 1998 French decision
to stop Hep B vaccinating adolescents for fear that Hep B vaccination is
causing multiple sclerosis...

If you know anything about hepadnaviruses in animals and how they are
connected with liver cancer, you'll have little doubt that the
epidemiology in humans vis a vis our own particular hepadnavirus (hep
B) is real.

Steve, you snipped this statement from HIV/AIDS hypothesis critic Peter
Duesberg, PhD:

"there is no convincing evidence that hepatitis B viral DNA is functionally
relevant for the initiation and maintenance of hepatomas."
[Duesberg PH and Schwartz JR: Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no
evidence for pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular
Biology, 1992;43:135-204]

I know very little about hepaDNAviruses and how they are connected to liver
cancer - and experts may also know very little - I quoted HIV/AIDS
hypothesis critic Duesberg as above - and you simply snipped that...

Duesberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and an expert on
viruses.

HepaDNAviruses may NOT cause cancer - just like HIV virus may not cause
AIDS.

Like most Americans, I blindly accepted the HIV/AIDS hypothesis until I
exposed American medicine's mass infant penis ripping and slicing using
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.

I blindly accepted the HIV/AIDS hypothesis until I saw that, to stay out of
prison, California MDs ignored their own Scientific Board and by voice vote
abruptly changed their "no medical indications" infant penis ripping and
slicing to a "we've-been-preventing-tranmsission-of-HIV/AIDS all along"
"effective public health measure.

THAT'S when I discovered Duesberg's criticisms of the shaky HIV/AIDS
hypothesis.

How shaky is the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?

VERY shaky...

See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable
and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]...
http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT

Copied to: Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via


Incidentally, the year after California MDs lied to stay out of prison, the
American Academy of Pediatrics committee looking into routine infant
circumcision failed to mention the California Medical Association's brand
new "effective public health measure" in reporting there were still no
medical indications - amid a "potential medical indications" media scam...

The media scam was so successful that MDs had to be informed:

MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989)
* * * * *FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION
* * * * * * AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/ 1989.06.08%3aMedicalTribune

There are STILL no medical indications for American medicine's grisly most
frequent surgical behavior toward males - which may explain why those
African gentlemen had their penises sliced recently - for fear of HIV -
which likely does not cause AIDS...

See again Kicking the Sacred Cow...

And see (again): *UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman
PF Riley, MD
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3776

In any case, the vaccine is of very very little risk (as seen in
controlled studies in China), and there are many many reasons other
than cancer to give it. Such as prevention of acute and chronic
hepatitis B . *Duh.

DUH? *"MANY MANY" reasons?

I say again...you simply ignored the fact that researchers reported that
African children weren't showing symptoms of Hep B disease.

I also say again...

Three medical physicians [Ganiats et al. 1993] concluded that hepatitis B
vaccination failed four of five criteria - criteria which, according to
Frame [1986], must be satisfied before a preventive measure is accepted as a
public health measure. *[Ganiats et al. Universal neonatal hepatitis B
immunization - are we jumping on the bandwagon too early? J Fam Prac
1993;36(2):144-9. *Citing Frame PS. A critical review of health
maintenance... J Fam Pract *1986;22:341-6.]

Ganiats et al. [1993] concluded that up to 37,000 vaccinations are needed to
prevent one case of hepatitis B carrier state....

Since hepatitis B carrier state ostensibly can lead to hepatocellular
carcinoma, Ganiats et al. [1993] noted ("for those who believe that
hepatocellular carcinoma is a valid rationale") that up to 6 million
vaccinations are necessary to prevent one case of hepatocellular
carcinoma....

Have the numbers changed since Ganiats et al. published in 1993?


Also, you snipped the part about Hep B vaccinations injected into Third
World children as American MDs refused the same Hep B vaccinations.

COMMENT:
They weren't done at the same time, you ninny. Please look at your
facts. While hep B was being made from human blood it was WAY to
expensive to be shipping to Africa, I assure you.

I may be wrong - but I suspect that the Hep B vaccine used in The Gambia was
made from human blood - and they kept using it as American MDs refused it...

Here again is what I wrote...

In 1987, while they were still trying to figure out hep B vaccine efficacy
against liver cancer, James E. Maynard, MD wrote:

"...[O]ver the next 5 to 10 years...[Third World countries] will need 350
million doses a year...By the year 2000 we will have accomplished our task
if we see hepatitis B incorporated as the seventh universal immunogen for
infant immunization in the Expanded Program on Immunization that is
sponsored by the World Health Organization." [James E. Maynard, M.D.,
executive director of a nine physician international task force run by the
Seattle-based Program for Appropriate Technology and Health (PATH),
discussing the hepatitis B vaccine produced by Alfred M. Prince, M.D. of
the New York Blood Center. *In Marwick C: JAMA, Sept.18, 1987;258(1):1439]

As hundreds of millions of Third World children were being injected with
hepatitis B vaccine, most of the world©–s physicians were refusing hepatitis
B vaccine injections - for fear of catching AIDS....

Dr. AM Prince, developer of the hepatitis B vaccine, wrote in 1991:

"[M]any high-risk individuals...do not wish to be vaccinated. *This applies
surprisingly to about 50% of physicians and nurses in many countries, who
despite all assurances remain unconvinced that HBV vaccine will not
transmit unknown agents of disease." [Prince AM: Hepatitis B virus: active
and passive immunization. In Cryz SJ (ed.): Vaccines and immunotherapy,
1991, New York: Pergamon Press.]

In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered
free of charge:

"...the majority of physicians...failed to be vaccinated even when offered
the hepatitis B vaccine free of charge." [Clancy CM, Cebul RD, Williams SV.
Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision
analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8]

Even stranger than doctors not taking their own hepatitis B vaccine is the
fact that Hepatitis B vaccine researchers discovered early on that nearly
all the African children on whom they were experimenting, were testing
positive for hepatitis B virus [The Lancet, May12, 1989, p. 1057-60] - but
were almost never expressing symptoms of the disease called hepatitis.
[Cancer Res, 1987;47:5782-87]

Maybe American MDs ("many a doc") made a public protest that Third World
children should not be injected with a Hep B vaccine that American MDs
weren't taking for fear of catching AIDS?

Maybe I just missed it?

COMMENT:

Yeah, you missed it. There was nothing to miss. The two cases didn't
involve the same vaccine.

You sound sure. *I say again: *I may be wrong - but I suspect that the Hep B
vaccine used in The Gambia was made from human blood - and they kept using
it as American MDs refused it...

There is a THIRD case - children in the US.

Since American MDs were refusing their own hep B vaccine for fear of
catching AIDS - American MDs should have spoken out.

I personally, BTW, wouldn't give a patient any standard preventive
thing I wasn't willing to take myself.

Yet you remain silent as your fellow MDs make infants scream and writhe and
bleed through the bogusly NEW "standard preventive thing" not yet officially
recognized - except in the 1988 California Medical Association
stay-out-of-prison "effective public health measure" resolution alluded to
above (CMA Res. 305-88, still in force I believe.)

You also remain silent as your fellow MDs temporarily asphyxiate babies and
senselessly rob them of massive amounts of blood volume.

Meanwhile you gloat about your profession's ability to commit crime:

"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no
crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to
you."

I've had every vaccine you can
name, and some you've never heard of.

That's nothing. *Most children have had vaccines they CAN'T name - vaccines
they've never heard of.

These vaccines are being obviously fraudulently promoted. *See below.


...
I mention this because - recently - American MDs didn't go public about
thimerosal going into Third World bloodstreams...

Or maybe they did and I just missed it?

[COMMENT:] Thimerosol's a political problem. Epidemiologically it's a no-show.

I believe thimerosal is a political STUNT.

Robert Kennedy writes:

"Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of
injections given to American infants -- but...CDC and FDA...[bought] up the
tainted vaccines for export to developing countries..."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

COMMENT:

Robert Kennedy's a no-show, too. Sucked into one of the stupider
liberal causes, when the world is full of very genuine problems that
need fixing.

I believe Robert Kennedy is a political STUNTMAN.

One of the "very genuine problems" that need fixing is the problem with
vaccines themselves (see below) - thimerosal just diverts attention from the
genuine vaccine problem.

Tim O'Shea, DC has written that thimerosal is a 'safe scapegoat/whipping
boy'...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3729

I agree.

THE GENUINE VACCINE PROBLEM...

I wrote to Leon Jaroff of TIME magazine:

"You concluded your article about two chiropractors expressing their
views/promoting vaccination by stating that both chiropractors believe that
chiropractors should not express their views about vaccination!...Be
advised: *Vaccination as it is currently performed - without obtaining
informed consent - is rather obvious mass battery...Even GOOD medicine
administered without consent is a battery...See the California Supreme
Court's 1993 THOR decision...The fact that the vaccination mass battery
isn't being prosecuted does not mean it is not a crime."

That's when you (Steve B. Harris, MD) wrote:

"Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."

You ignored the following in my Open Letter to Leon Jaroff of TIME
magazine...

MDS have hijacked the power word "immunization" to promote their
vaccinations. *(MDs are mostly anti-immunization - effectively denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations by
concealing the fact that BREASTFEEDINGS are immunizations - more on this
below.)

Vaccinations are not immunizations. *Vaccinations are ATTEMPTED
immunizations. *Many children are not immunized by their vaccinations - yet
MDs behave as if their vaccinations are 100% effective.

It is a fraudulent vaccination promotion - a financial cattle prod. *MDs are
telling parents seeking vaccine exemptions that only THEIR children will be
sent home during disease outbreaks - only THEY will have to bear the
financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring tutors during
disease outbreaks.

CDC's maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD:

"What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks,
[unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the
outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the
child and parent."
--Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d /p4017.htm

Here is the fraudulent vaccination promotion as stated by the largest
pediatric trade union:

"Parents should be advised of state laws...which may require that
[unvaccinated] children stay home from school during outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP^^^

^^^From Informing patients and parents. In: Pickering LK, ed. 2000 Red Book:
Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 25th ed. Elk Grove Villiage,
IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 2000:4. Quoted in Frederickson et al.
Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:401

Parents are asked to SIGN the obvious fraud:

"If my child does not receive the vaccine(s)...consequences may
include...the need for my child to stay out of daycare or school during
disease outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics 2002
http://www.cispimmunize.org/pr o/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate2.doc

THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION Since many children are not immunized by their
vaccinations, ALL parents should be told that ALL children will be sent home
during disease outbreaks.

It is simply wrong for MDs to endanger vaccinated children not immunized by
their vaccinations in their fraudulent "disease outbreak" vaccination
promotion scenario.

I should note here that the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD to my
criticisms was good...Jeff usually doesn't come up with good replies...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com /group/chiro-list/message/3569

But MDs need to finally openly admit their vaccination promotion fraud - and
the fact that they are mostly anti-immunization.

MDs ARE MOSTLY ANTI-IMMUNIZATION - LYING BY OMISSION

As indicated above, organized medicing is lying by omission thereby denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

Organized medicine is failing to inform pregnant women that if they
breastfeed they will automatically scan for pathogens and manufacture
specific IMMUNIZATIONS for their babies on a daily basis - and these
immunizations reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better.

MDs are ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and
vaccination rates skyrocket.

What woman, informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and (reportedly)
make MD-needle-vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT
to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily?

VACCINE SAFETY: *TRULY BIZARRE FRAUDULENT VACCINATION PROMOTION BY MDs...

One of the saddest commentaries on organized medicine's attitude regarding
establishing vaccine safety is pediatrician Martin Smith's essay about the
passage of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act,"
published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics
1988;82(2):264-9]

In his essay, Smith [1988] wrote that "members should be informed of the
necessity that led to the inclusion of some of the provisions in the act as
they now exist."

Specifically, Smith [1988] noted that "many [vaccine] administrators have
not heretofore practiced" reporting adverse events; but that "these
requirements *had to be accepted* in the process of negotiations through the
years - because "Congress had *demanded* the inclusion of the reaction
reporting requirement as a condition to the legislation." (Emphasis added.)

In noting that Congress's adverse reaction reporting requirement will give
"a better epidemiologic store of information," Smith [1988] admitted a key
point: *No one knows "the real facts" about vaccine reactions/vaccine
safety! [Smith M. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.
Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9]

According to the subsequent National Academy of Sciences vaccine safety
report mandated by the Act, "many gaps and limitations of knowledge
bear...directly and indirectly on the safety of
vaccines...[including]...limit ed capacity of existing surveillance systems
of vaccine injury..." [Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse effects of
pertussis and rubella vaccines. National Academy Press 1991]

How bad are existing physician surveillance systems of vaccine injury?

Hopefully they are better than they were in 1993 when former FDA
commissioner David Kessler, M.D. reported evidence that physicians fail to
report up to 99% of serious adverse events.
[Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication
and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA
(Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68]

Kessler [1993] said that in spite of the fact that reports from health
professionals are "essential" to ensure safety of medicines, physicians "do
not think to report adverse events."

Also according to Kessler [1993], physician reporting of serious adverse
events "is not in the culture of US medicine" because, as of 1985, only 14%
of US medical schools had required courses in "therapeutic decision making."

The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet for Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR) states, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks," which
implies that "any medicine" carries "very small risks"

Given FDA commissioner Kessler's statement that one study found that
physicians fail to report 99% of serious adverse events, "any medicine"
might actually be quite risky. *And since the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
compares vaccine risk with the risk of "any medicine," vaccines might be
just as risky as "any medicine." *Thus the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
"warning" (that vaccines carry "very small risks") is worthless.

Incidentally, although the courts claim that parents are "warned" about
vaccines, the word "warning" does not appear anywhere on the CDC MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet; nor, incidentally, does the MMR Vaccine Information Sheet
state that some states have "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions.

FDA Commissioner Kessler's 1993 report states, "If an adverse event occurs
in perhaps one in 5000 or even one in 1000 users, it could be missed in
clinical trials but pose a serious safety problem when released to the
market."

END excerpt of Gastaldo's Open Letter to TIME magazine

Steve B. Harris, MD continued - offering his version of a "genuine vaccine
problem"...

Such as how to vaccine the third world cheaply. Here we
have one child die of preventable measles EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY in
Africa, and this moron JFK,Jr is worried that we might be giving them
**autism**? Of the 1.8 million vaccine preventable deaths in the third
world, HALF are measles. Screw the thimerosal. Those kids need MMR and
they need it *yesterday.* And RFK,Jr seems something to keep him busy,
like organized crime.

Steve, regardless whether vaccines and thimerosal are as safe as you
indicate, many children in Africa need FOOD, SHELTER AND CLEAN WATER.

Food, shelter and clean water would certainly be my priorities were I an
African child.

Until I had those needs met, I would not want foreigners injecting poison
into me to MAYBE prevent liver cancer 60 years later - and to prevent a
disease (Hep B) that I am not suffering from.

The Hep B/liver cancer campaign seems strange on its face.

As I noted (and you snipped):

"...the world public is unaware that millions
(billions?) are being spent to innoculate children to MAYBE prevent the
adult cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma - as 50% of African children in
some areas starve to death. [50% mortality rate is from Sachs MY and Martin
AS (Eds.): Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 2: Africa, 7th ed.,
1988, New York: Worldmark Press, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]"

Say, if he could just get a brother elected president, maybe he could
get to be attorney general.... * Meanwhile he's a pretty pathetic
characature of his relatives.

Medicine is a pretty pathetic caricature of science.

This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison
paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct
"poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or
against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4
million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended
consequences. *They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their
utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used
at all.

Disgusting!

Your fellow American MDs are making babies scream and writhe and bleed and
sometimes die and lose their penis - and you are silent.

Your fellow American MDs are temporarily asphyxiating babies and robbing
them of up to 50% of their blood - and you are silent.

THAT is disgusting.

Thanks for the Hep B references - but I think they are suspect as the
African penis studies which as noted above I believe are being conducted
because American MDs stand to go to prison.

Todd,

Certainly the authority of both sides is different,
and certainly some of that authority is socially
constructed and less than merited. But some of it
derives from the fact that the CDC and MDs are the
side that is more affiliated with scientific research.
Today's science isn't perfect, but it is the best we've
got. Ideally, everyone would be educated enough to
know how to visit PubMed, find the relevant studies,
and see what they think, as well as read newsgroups
like this one and find messages like yours.

Emily, planning on taking advantage of the extra 30%
--
DS 5/02
EDD 6 days ago

Elfanie wrote:
Personally, having looked into it to some extent, I feel that
the risks of *not* vaccinating outweigh any potential risks
of vaccinating.


You think the risk of not vaccinating outweight any potential risk of
vaccination...for ALL Vaccinations??

or are you saying as a whole...if you have to take all vaccinations or
leave all vaccinations...then having NO vaccinations tisk outweigh
potential risks of all vaccinations as a whole?

For my kids, for the vaccinations we've been offered,
the risks of not vaccinating outweigh the risk of vaccinating.
We don't have specific immune issues, for example, which
would be contraindications. I can't say I've spent hours
researching each one, but that is the conclusion I've reached.

--
Emily
DS 5/02
EDD 6 days ago