Regarding Recent News Reports of Measles Cases Identified in Sarasota

We hope and pray that the children in Sarasota reportedly suffering from the measles will have a full and speedy recovery.

It is also our sincere hope that the reaction from officials and the news media to this situation will not follow the usual script, which goes something like this:

[1] Blame and scapegoat the unvaccinated, while ignoring numerous problems associated with the MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine, which many credentialed experts describe as ineffective and unsafe

[2] Call for the removal of vaccination exemptions

[3] Repeat the calls for mandatory vaccination, with no exceptions regardless of family medical history, or known problems of efficacy and/or safety with certain vaccines.

For a brief introduction to some of the problems associated with the MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine, please see:

Can Measles Vaccine Cause Injury & Death?
https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-vaccine-injury-death.aspx
Excerpt:
As of March 1, 2016, there have been 972 claims filed so far in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for 57 deaths and 915 injuries that occurred after MMR vaccination. There have been 35 claims filed with the VICP for 1 death and 34 injuries that occurred after MMR-V vaccination. Of that number, the U.S. Court of Claims administering the VICP has compensated 377 children and adults, who have filed MMR vaccine injury claims and 16 children and adults, who have filed MMR-V claims.

Sarasota] $101 Million Dollar Vaccine Injury Award for Encephalopathy from MMR Vaccine
https://sarasotavaccinationchoice.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/sarasota-101-million-dollar-vaccine-injury-award-for-encephalopathy-from-mmr-vaccine/
Excerpt:
(July 17th, 2018 – SARASOTA, FL) — Attorneys at Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A. negotiated a $101 million dollar settlement for an infant who suffered a severe reaction to the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

O.R.* was a one-year-old healthy baby girl who was already walking and climbing. On February 13, 2013, she received vaccinations for Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR), Hepatitis A, Haemophilus Influenzae type B (Hib), Prevnar (pneumonia), and Varicella (chickenpox). That evening, the mother noticed baby O.R. was irritable and feverish. After a call to the pediatrician, the doctor advised Mom to give her Tylenol and Benadryl. The fever continued for several days and on the evening before the baby’s scheduled pediatrician visit, O.R. began having severe seizures. She was rushed to the emergency room. Baby O.R. went into cardiac and respiratory arrest and doctors placed her on a ventilator.

The seizures and cardiac arrest left O.R. with a severe brain injury, encephalopathy, cortical vision impairment, truncal hypotonia (low muscle tone), and kidney failure. After months of treatment at the hospital, baby O.R. finally went home, but her disabilities require specialized medical care and supervision around the clock for the rest of her life.

Is MMR Vaccine a Fraud or Does It Just Wear Off Quickly?
https://sarasotavaccinationchoice.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/is-mmr-vaccine-a-fraud-or-does-it-just-wear-off-quickly/
Excerpt:
This was also the main point of contention of a second class action lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care16 in 2012, which charged Merck with violating the False Claims Act. Both of these lawsuits were given the green light to proceed in 2014,17 18 and are still pending.

In 2015, Merck was accused of stonewalling, “refusing to respond to questions about the efficacy of the vaccine,” according to a court filing by Krahling and Wlochowski’s legal team.19 “Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy … but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is,” they said.

‘Vaccines Revealed’: CDC Knew in 2001 That MMR Vaccine Causes Autism
https://sarasotavaccinationchoice.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/vaccines-revealed-cdc-knew-in-2001-that-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/
Excerpt:
The CDC Knew in 2001 That The MMR Vaccine Causes Autism!
In Dr. Brian Hooker’s second interview he discusses in detail his conversations with CDC lead scientist Dr. William Thompson and the revelation that the CDC committed fraud by hiding that the MMR vaccine causes Autism in certain populations.

In Conclusion:

As always, we must remain ever-vigilant to defend our rights to informed consent and genuine health freedom, and to always demand safer, more effective solutions to protect our own health and the health of our communities.

Advertisements

Professor Says Parents Have No Right to Refuse Vaccines for Their Children

[Our comment: No surprise here, unfortunately, regarding so-called Medical Ethicist and longtime pro-GMO (genetically modified organism) propagandist, Arthur Kaplan.]

Original here:  https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/10/professor-says-parents-have-no-right-to-refuse-vaccines-for-their-children/

by Marco Cáceres

In a recent video commentary published in Medscape, New York University professor Arthur L. Caplan, PhD offered his views on the question of whether children have “vaccination rights.”1

Dr. Caplan thinks that what he defines as the “vaccination rights” of minor children supersede the legal right of their parents to exercise informed consent to vaccination on their children’s behalf if a parent elects to decline one or more government recommended vaccines for whatever reason. He claims that vaccinating children represents a higher moral imperative than respecting the informed consent rights of parents.

“I want to point out a moral stance that I don’t think has gotten enough attention, which is that every child has the right to be vaccinated,” said Caplan. “We keep talking about parents’ right to say yes or no, to avoid mandates or requirements, or to do what they choose to do. Someone has to speak up and say, ‘Well, what about the kids? Don’t they have any rights?’”1

Caplan believes that if parents refuse to vaccinate their kids the government has the right to override the legal right of parents to make medical care decisions for their children. Caplan argues that the government has the duty to vaccinate the children without the consent of the parents and by force, if need be. “If the parents won’t do it, I think it’s the responsibility of the state or the government to do it,” said Caplan. “The presumption should be not listening to what parents who don’t want to vaccinate are saying, but starting out with a presumption that kids have a right to fight off deadly diseases, that kids who can’t be vaccinated have a right to protection. How do we move public policy forward from there?”1

Attempts to answer Caplan’s question about how to “move public policy forward” on the issue of parental rights regarding vaccination of their children are already well underway in the United States. Legislation has been introduced in states like California that would seek to give government the right to make health care decisions for children, even against the wishes of their parents, if the state deems the decisions to be in the best interests of the children.2 3

Such legislation would also allow government authorities to take legal physical custody of children in cases where parents refuse to comply with mandates forcing or coercing them to vaccinate their children.2 3

Continues here:  https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/10/professor-says-parents-have-no-right-to-refuse-vaccines-for-their-children/

Is MMR Vaccine a Fraud or Does It Just Wear Off Quickly?

Original here:  https://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2018/05/is-mmr-vaccine-a-fraud-or-does-it-just-wear-off-quickly/

by Joseph Mercola, DO

In 2010, two Merck virologists filed a federal lawsuit against their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker lied about the effectiveness of the mumps portion of its MMR II vaccine.

In 1986, public health officials stated that MMR vaccination rates for kindergarten children were in excess of 95 percent and that one dose of live attenuated measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) would eliminate the three common childhood diseases in the U.S.1 In 1989, parents were informed that a single dose of MMR vaccine was inadequate for providing lifelong protection against these common childhood diseases and that children would need to get a second dose of MMR.2

Today, 95 percent of children entering kindergarten3 have received two doses of MMR vaccine, as have 92 percent of school children ages 13 to 17 years.4

In some states, the MMR vaccination rate is approaching 100 percent.5 Despite achieving the sought-for MMR vaccination rate for more than three decades, which theoretically should ensure “herd immunity,” outbreaks of both measles and mumps keep occurring—and many of those who get sick are children and adults who have been vaccinated.

Mumps is Making a Comeback

As recently reported by Science Magazine6 and The New York Times,7 mumps is making a strong comeback among college students, with hundreds of outbreaks occurring on U.S. campuses over the past two decades. Last summer, the Minnesota Department of Health reported its largest mumps outbreak since 2006.8

According to recent research,9 the reason for this appears to be, at least in part, waning vaccine-acquired immunity. In other words, protection from the MMR vaccine is wearing off quicker than expected. Science Magazine writes:

[Epidemiologist Joseph Lewnard and immunologist Yonatan Grad, both at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston] compiled data from six previous studies of the vaccine’s effectiveness carried out in the United States and Europe between 1967 and 2008. (None of the studies is part of a current fraudulent claims lawsuit against U.S. vaccine maker Merck.)

Based on these data, they estimated that immunity to mumps lasts about 16 to 50 years, or about 27 years on average. That means as much as 25 percent of a vaccinated population can lose immunity within eight years, and half can lose it within 19 years … The team then built mathematical models using the same data to assess how declining immunity might affect the susceptibility of the U.S. population.

When they ran the models, their findings lined up with reality. For instance, the model predicted that 10- to 19-year-olds who had received a single dose of the mumps vaccine at 12 months were more susceptible to infection; indeed, outbreaks in those age groups happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1989, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added a second dose of the vaccine at age 4 to 6 years. Outbreaks then shifted to the college age group.

A Third Booster Shot May Be Added

According to public health officials, the proposed solution to boosting vaccine-acquired mumps immunity in the U.S. population is to add a third booster shot of MMR vaccine at age 18.

Unfortunately, adding a booster for mumps means giving an additional dose of measles and rubella vaccines as well, as the three are only available in the combined MMR vaccine or combined MMR-varicella (MMRV) vaccine. At present, a third MMR shot is routinely recommended during active mumps outbreaks, even though there is no solid proof that this strategy is effective.

CONTINUES HERE: https://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2018/05/is-mmr-vaccine-a-fraud-or-does-it-just-wear-off-quickly/

Tell President Trump That You Want Vaccination Choice Included in the Proposed Rule Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care

See also: Upholding Religious and Conscience-Based Vaccine Exemptions
https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/upholding-religious-and-conscience-based-vaccine-exemptions/

Tell President Trump That You Want Vaccination Choice Included in the Proposed Rule Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care

Original here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2018/03/tell-president-trump-that-you-want-vaccination-choice-included-in-the-proposed-rule-protecting-statu.html

Note:  Below is an excerpt from the Federal Register on President Trump’s Proposed Rule Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations  of Authority. You have an opportunity to comment on the need to include conscience rights for vaccination choice. The vaccine pipeline is chock full of new opportunities to compel Americans to uptake a product through shaming, job loss and denial of a free an appropriate education – a product that carries known risk of injury and/or death and yet whose manufacturers bear no liability. Like guns, vaccines have been designated by SCOTUS as “unavoidably unsafe.”   This simply means that by their very design and nature, they can harm you with use. Obvious in the case of guns. And obvious to most of us here at AofA when it comes to vaccines as well.

Even if you currently choose some, few or every vaccine available for yourself and/or your children, if you would like the have the OPTION of saying “NO” to a vaccine in the future, you should consider leaving a comment as a vote for your personal medical rights.

Please click this link and leave your comment on the site. And then copy and paste it to our comments, if  you’d like to share it with us.  Thank you.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/26/2018-01226/protecting-statutory-conscience-rights-in-health-care-delegations-of-authority#open-comment

###

A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 01/26/2018

SUMMARY:

In the regulation of health care, the United States has a long history of providing conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions. Multiple such statutory protections apply to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, or the Department) and the programs or activities it funds or administers. The Department proposes to revise regulations previously promulgated to ensure that persons or entities are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate, in violation of such Federal laws. Through this rulemaking, the Department proposes to grant overall responsibility to its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for ensuring that the Department, its components, HHS programs and activities, and those who participate in HHS programs or activities comply with Federal laws protecting the rights of conscience and prohibiting associated discriminatory policies and practices in such programs and activities. In addition to conducting outreach and providing technical assistance, OCR will have the authority to initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the Department and its components, and use enforcement tools otherwise available in civil rights law to address violations and resolve complaints. In order to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance and other Department funds comply with their legal obligations, the Department will require certain recipients to maintain records; cooperate with OCR’s investigations, reviews, or other enforcement actions; submit written assurances and certifications of compliance to the Department; and provide notice to individuals and entities about their conscience and associated anti-discrimination rights, as applicable.

With this proposed regulation, the Department seeks to more effectively and comprehensively enforce Federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, the Department proposes to grant its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) overall responsibility for ensuring that the Department, its components, HHS programs and activities, and those who participate in HHS programs or activities comply with these Federal laws. In addition to conducting outreach and providing technical assistance, OCR will have the authority to initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the Department and its component(s), and use enforcement tools comparable to those available under other civil rights laws to more effectively address violations and resolve complaints. In order to ensure that recipients of Department funds comply with their legal obligations, as it does with other civil rights laws within its purview, the Department will require certain funding recipients to maintain records; cooperate with OCR’s investigations, reviews, or enforcement actions; submit written assurances and certifications of compliance to the Department; and provide notice to individuals and entities about conscience and associated anti-discrimination rights (as applicable).