Category Archives: vaccines

The CDC is developing a nationwide “medical police state” program

TO TRACK VACCINE COMPLIANCE

(Natural News) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is essentially the vaccine compliance and enforcement division of the pharmaceutical industry. Their newly developed program, Immunization Information Systems (IIS), is part of the roll out of a kind of “medical police state” which would allow the government to monitor and track the mandatory vaccine compliance of every citizen.

This data is collected automatically; there is no consent. The database tracks your personal and family health decisions, even when you say NO to a vaccine. The database will identify areas of “under vaccination” and track citizens who are not in compliance with the current childhood and adult vaccine schedules. Continue reading

Advertisements

Vaccine Mania is on the March

AS BIG PHARMA FINDS NEW WAYS TO EXPAND THEIR MARKET!

By AL Whitney © copyround 2018
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net is acknowledged.

In 2016 the vaccine-savvy parents in California lost the “privilege” of  excluding their children from the mandated vaccines the propagandized legislators in the state determined all children need to attend school.  This was the result of the passage of Senate Bill 277.

Hospitals across the country are now requiring their employees take the annual flu shots, irregardless of its lack of efficacy and high incidence of adverse reactions. Dr. Alvin Moss explained this dilemma – and the government incentives driving it – to a state senate committee in West Virginia on March 18, 2017

Dr Alvin Moss Testimony

More and more colleges and universities are requiring an increasing number of vaccines for admission.

Walgreens has partnered (most likely for a tidy sum) with the Veteran’s Administration to offer free flu shots.  Their pharmacists can now enter these vaccinations directly into the veteran’s medical record electronically.

Nationally the engine for expanding the vaccine market is the Department of Health and Human Resource’s program Healthy People 2020. Internationally it is the Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization.  Both of these behemoths are touted as public private partnerships. The minions who are hired to push these programs are taught that public private partnerships are a beneficial union of government employees (and/or non-profits) and private industry. They are taught that these alliances are formed because they have a shared goal.  Of course this is pure poppycock.  Big pharma has only one real goal – profit! (See: Big Pharma Exposed) Public Private Partnerships are actually conflicts of interests in the extreme.

Lobbying state legislators has only proven to be effective for Big Pharma, with a few rare exceptions. See: Drug companies donate millions to California lawmakers

The men, women, and children of America need a new strategy to combat Vaccine Mania. They need to look closely at the presumed authority our so-called government is using to inflict vaccines (toxic unwarranted pharmaceuticals*) on them.  The guide, Overcoming Vaccine Mania, does exactly that. It explains that transferring the liability (costs) for the harm and injury vaccines cause  onto those requiring them is the most reasonable solution.

Here is info about and access to the 2018 Overcoming Vaccine Mania guide

“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if its not open.”
Frank Zappa


* Toxic – vaccines contain aluminum, mercury or formaldehyde
Unwarranted – Big Pharma has been relieved of all liability and therefore has no obligation to warrant them as either safe or effective, which they don’t
Pharmaceuticals – all drugs, including vaccines, are patented concoctions not found in nature

Related

Judge shoots down the vaccination “choice” movement

 

 

The Science of Vaccine Damage

Editor’s note: This is our dog Dudley at 12 years of age. We were told by two different veterinarians that there was no cure or treatment for his vaccine induced autoimmune disorder, which caused his skin to turn black and his hair to fall out. However, he did indeed recover.  [See photo at the end of the article.]

by Catherine O’Driscoll

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs — “but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Continue reading

Breaking down the vaccine propaganda machine!

Internet talk show host, Vinnie Eastwood out of New Zealand, does an excellent job explaining how vaccination-propaganda misleads the public into believing that vaccines are safe and how parents who protect their children from these unsafe products are demonized!

Judge shoots down the vaccination “choice” movement!

LAWYERS WHO FILED A REQUEST TO STOP THE ENFORCEMENT OF SB 277 WERE SHOT DOWN BY THREE SUPREME COURT RULINGS!

By AL Whitney © copyround 2016
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net  is acknowledged.

 

Supreme Court SealSenate Bill 277 was passed and signed into ‘law’ by Governor Brown last year. This so-called law prevents parents from opting out of California’s vaccination requirements for children entering public or private schools.  Essentially no child can be enrolled without proof that they have been subjected to a litany of unwarranted pharmaceutical products called vaccines.

Before the passage of SB 277 parents could submit a document or form requesting permission to opt out (get an exemption) with the assurance that this permission would be granted. This process has been relied on by California vaccine-savy parents for many years, allowing them to ignore the fact that the ‘state’ had no authority to force them to have their progeny injected with any substance whatsoever. The privilege (the Judge’s words not mine) of opting out created what is referred to as the vaccine “choice” movement, i.e. the parent could chose to vaccinate or not!

Well, on August 26, 2016 Judge Dana Sabraw of the UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA filed a motion in the court denying the request of a group of attorneys (on behalf of multiple people and institutions) to stop the implementation of SB 277. The attorneys had sited several reasons to halt the application of SB 277 including ‘Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion’.

Some of us were expecting this response for the very same reasons the Judge cited, the main one being case law that was established by the 1944 Supreme Court decision Prince vs. Massachusetts. Judge Sabraw not only cited the Prince case, he sited two others as well: Jacobson vs the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht vs. King (1922). None of these three cases has been overturned mainly because the Supremes have refused to hear suits challenging them, which is their prerogative in our current injustice system. In fact, the Rutherford Institute filed a petition to challenge mandatory vaccines in 2011 and the Supremes rejected it.

Here is Judge Sabraw’s official conclusion: Continue reading

Calling the shots: State forces parents to sign vaccine docs

STINGING FIGHT ERUPTS OVER NEW ‘ATTEMPTS’ TO INVADE FAMILIES PRIVACY!

By Bob Unruh, WND.com
August 21, 2016

[Comments from the PAMV editor:  Ahhh! The ongoing battle between the statutory code writers and the administrative code enforcers! Question: are the administrative code enforcers merely meeting their obligations to a federal grant contract ($$$) that the statutory code writers are unaware of? If you read the fine print in Clinton’s Ex Or 13132 on “Federalism” it becomes a distinct possibility.]

vaccine injectionA fight has erupted over a decision by bureaucrats in Colorado to go, according to critics, well beyond what the law allows and threaten parents of homeschoolers seeking exemptions from state vaccinations requirements for their children.

There was a plan before the legislature earlier this year that would have demanded homeschool parents sign forms stating things like, “My child may be at increased risk of developing …” and “Failure to follow the advice of a physician … who has recommended vaccines may endanger my child’s/my health or life and others who come into contact with my child/me.”

Officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association said they helped defeat the “attempts to invade families’ privacy.”

The proposal didn’t give parents the option – it simply demanded they make that particular political statement.

But, the HSLDA explains, demanding that parents “affirm that by exempting their child from immunizations they are endangering the life and health of that child … is at odds with some parents’ personal and/or religion beliefs.”

“By forcing parents to make this statement, the state of Colorado is unconstitutionally compelling speech.”

The issue now is that although lawmakers rejected the idea, “overzealous state officials are back at it – this time with an unconstitutional form which may force parents to violate their conscience in order to obtain immunization exemptions for their children.”

A new report explained the form was created in June by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment and “is mandatory for anyone seeking a non-medical exemption from state immunization requirements. Persons who sign the form in order to obtain an exemption are required to affirm a number of statements which may go against their personal and religious beliefs,” HSLDA reported.

Continue reading

Doctor offers vaccination contract to parent of sick child!

CONTRACTS SIGNED UNDER DURESS OR COERCION ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE – UNLESS THEY CONTAIN NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER THREAT OR COERCION!

Earlier this year a relatively ill advised physician in California permitted his office personnel to administer a nasty little contract agreement to his new patients, that is if he even knew about the paper work they were handing out to all new patients.  Many times physicians foolishly allow business managers to process whatever paperwork they feel appropriate and are completely in the dark.

Excerpts from an article found on jeffereyjaxen.com/blog titled Doctor’s Refusing Care Unless Patients Sign “Immunization Contract” Forcing Full Schedule of Shots

It was a day like any other at the Carmichael, California practice of Matthew T. Cohan, MD. A father entered the waiting room with his daughter by his side. The daughter — a new patient — was experiencing upper respiratory congestion. Before she could be seen, standard new patient paperwork needed to be filled out. However, on the final page of this paperwork, the office required new documentation to be complete before the patient could be seen.

Here is Dr. Cohan’s Immunization Contract:

Immunization Contract

As the father was seeking medical attention for his sick daughter, it is unlikely the physician would have vaccinated the girl during that visit anyway. However, by demanding this agreement be signed PRIOR to the child seeing the doctor, it could easily be seen as a denial of care.  Unfortunately there is no indication on the contract that the child was even ill.

So, why would a pediatrician deny care to a child whose parent prefers not to vaccinate per the CDC schedule, outside of the fact he is grossly ignorant of the nature of the CDC itself?

Was it the carrot or the stick?

In the case of this physician it could be BOTH the carrot and the stick. Continue reading