If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.
—George Orwell
As discussed previously, the vaccine program was out of control by the latter half of the 1800s, and compulsory vaccination was enforced with fines and jail sentences. But if the vaccine-believing doctors and lawmakers of that era were to observe today’s vaccine program, even they would be flabbergasted at both its power and its absurdity.
Compulsory vaccination in the past meant the public had to submit to one vaccine for one disease. Compulsory vaccination laws were passed based on the correct understanding that smallpox is a communicable disease coupled with the incorrect belief that pus from sick cows protected against the spread of smallpox. The laws were passed, in all likelihood, by well-meaning leaders attempting to protect their families and communities. Based on the information they had at the time, the greater good argument made at least some sense. In addition to the practice of vaccination, sick and infected people were isolated from the greater population to limit disease transmission, a practice that also makes sense, and quarantine continues to be used effectively today in developing countries to limit the spread of polio and other infectious diseases.
By contrast, the only sense to be made of modern mandatory vaccination laws is business sense. From a public health perspective, the laws are absurd from beginning to end. Consider a few of many farcical points resulting from the passage of California’s SB 277:
1. The theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity is based on the belief that an approximate vaccination rate of 95% will prevent disease outbreaks. It’s well known that the efficacy of vaccines diminishes over time, thus the need for boosters or yearly revaccination in the case of the flu vaccine. Therefore, most adults are no more immune to the diseases targeted by vaccines than are vaccine-free children. Vaccinating school-aged children has little effect on reaching the fabled population-wide 95% vaccination rate.
2. The premise for banning nonvaccinated children from their constitutionally protected public education is that they endanger the health status of vaccinated children, who are, in theory, protected from “vaccine preventable diseases.” If the vaccinations don’t protect against the non-vaccinated, then why take the risk of getting them in the first place?
3. According to immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, author of Vaccine Illusion,
. . . due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all . . . .1
Therefore, banning children from school who have not received these vaccines is nothing more than state-sponsored discrimination, which would be less glaring if children recently vaccinated with live virus vaccines were also banned from school for a month or so following vaccination and if the carriers of hepatitis B, HIV, and HPV-related STDs were also banned from school, but such is not the case.
4. The idea that separating vaccine-free children from vaccinated children in the public school setting for 6 out of 24 hours five days a week somehow protects vaccinated children is beyond illogical. If a public health official living in Leicester, England, in the 1860s had suggested that healthy non-vaccinated individuals should be quarantined from their peers in like manner, that individual would have been tarred and feathered, consigned to the mad house, or both. If there is to be any logical use of banning children from school, it must be based on health status rather than vaccination status. If such a policy were implemented, sick, diseased, and recently vaccinated children would be the ones banned from school, not healthy vaccine-free children. In 1999, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons addressed this issue in testimony before the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform:
Federal policy of mandating vaccines marks a profound change in the concept of public health. Traditionally, public health authorities restricted the liberties of individuals only in case of a clear and present danger to public health. For example, individuals infected with a transmissible disease were quarantined. Today, a child may be prevented from attending school or associating with others simply because of being unimmunized. If there is not an outbreak of disease and if the child is uninfected, his or her unimmunized state is not a threat to anyone. An abridgement of civil rights in such cases cannot be justified.2
George Fatheree, a Harvard-educated attorney and father of a severely vaccine-injured son, testified before the California Assembly Committee on Health on June 9, 2015, where he articulated the practical implications of attempting to implement SB 277. Among other points, Fatheree informed the committee that the bill unfairly discriminated against California’s most vulnerable students, including the economically disadvantaged, children with non-English-speaking parents, the homeless, and special needs children with IEPs who call for socialization with their nondisabled peers. In regard to the latter point, Fatheree stated, “So . . . SB 277 is in direct conflict with Federal education law and will be preempted.” He further argued that
there’s no compelling state interest to eliminate a personal belief exemption, especially given that it’s used by such a small percentage of the population. . . . The bill is also not tailored which is a requirement for it to be held constitutional. It applies to every kid, it applies to every disease whether the disease is communicable or not. It applies to diseases that have been eradicated from US shores for decades like diphtheria. So [there are] serious constitutional problems.3
If legislators had listened to Fatheree, SB 277 would have suffered an ignominious death on that very day. But they didn’t listen; nor did they listen to numerous others who opposed the repressive legislation. Barbara Loe Fisher, representing the National Vaccine Information Center, testified before the committee with her usual clarity:
This bill is not about measles or pertussis. It is about taking power away from mothers and fathers to make medical risk decisions for their minor children and handing it over to doctors to implement a one-size-fits-all policy with no personal accountability for the children who become casualties of that policy. Many parents refuse to violate their deeply held religious, spiritual and conscientious beliefs that compel them to protect their children. . . . The prospect of non-complying parents being charged with truancy and fined or potentially sent to jail if they cannot homeschool will foster mistrust and fear of health officials and the medical profession.4
Yes, the purpose of SB 277 is about stripping parents of their right to make medical risk decisions for their minor children, but as Fisher alludes to in her statement, the stripping only applies to the poor and working-class citizens of California. Those who possess sufficient gold in the Golden State have the means to exclude their children from vaccine mandates by educating their children in home-based private schools.
The architects of mandatory vaccination legislation hold hostage the protected right of free public education from those who can’t afford other options. The ransom required to regain what was illegally stolen—free access to public education—is free access to the bodies of their children.
How do California citizens feel about SB 277? Nearly 800 citizens made statements before the Senate Education Committee in April 2015. Of that number 743 opposed SB 277, while only 53 supported it.5
Prior to the passage of SB 277, Senator Richard Pan, cosponsor Ben Allen, and several other supporters of the bill repeatedly stated that doctors would be free to exercise full clinical judgment with medical exemptions and that the government would not interfere with that process. Barbara Loe Fisher disagreed, warning that 99.99% of children would not qualify for medical exemptions. George Fatheree testified that he couldn’t get a medical exemption for his daughter based her older brother’s severe vaccine injury.6 California Governor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr. added his voice to the mix in a letter dated June 30, 2015, addressed to the Members of the California State Senate. After he stated his intent to sign the bill, Brown wrote,
The Legislature, after considerable debate, specifically amended SB 277, to exempt a child from immunizations whenever the child’s physician concludes that there are “circumstances, including but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization . . .”
Thus, SB 277, while requiring that school children be vaccinated, explicitly provides an exception when a physician believes that circumstances—in the judgement and sound discretion of the physician—so warrant.7
In June of 2016, the Public Health Department in Santa Barbara issued a letter that proved that the assurances from Governor Brown, Pan, and his colleagues were just more lies in a string of lies that duped legislators into passing the repressive bill.8 Whether most were party to or victim of the lie is unknown. The letter was addressed to school superintendents, principals, and child care center directors, and in the words of independent journalist Jefferey Jaxen, it
. . . demands all permanent and temporary medical exemptions on file for the 2016-2017 California school year be faxed to the Immunization Program citing the authority of a newly formed Medical Exemption Pilot Program. From there, “Immunization Staff” will determine if the once-promised medical exemptions will be allowed.9
Repressive laws around the world similar to California’s SB 277 prevent The Herd in developed countries from leaving the Vaccine religion. Such laws add another tier to the global two-tiered vaccine program with the elite remaining free to abstain from vaccinations as always, but with the poor and working-class citizens coerced into receiving every vaccine according to the vaccination schedules in their respective countries. The poor and working classes in developing countries are forced—sometimes at gunpoint—to receive vaccines that are banned in developed countries such as the oral polio vaccine, DTP, and thimerosal-containing vaccines. Repressive regimes build walls and prisons to corral The Herd, control behavior, and punish dissent. Mandatory vaccination accomplishes the same purpose.
California is only one of dozens of states caught up in the wave of coercive vaccine-related legislation following the 2015 Disneyland measles hysteria. Virginia defeated a bill (HB 1312) described as “[t]he most oppressive forced vaccination bill introduced in any state. . . .” Had it passed, it would have eliminated the religious belief exemption, and, according to vaccine safety advocate Cathy Jameson, it would have also prohibited
. . . state licensed doctors and nurse practitioners from exercising professional judgment and delaying administration of or granting a child a medical exemption that does not conform with narrow federal vaccine contraindication guidelines.10
The truth of the matter is that vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with public education. Vaccination legislation is tied to it for one reason and one reason only: the majority of parents would reject some or all vaccines for their children if the government did not force them into submission: “No jabs, no school.” And the majority of school administrators would reject the role of vaccine cop if the government didn’t tie vaccination rates to school funding.
The Northern Utah Immunization Coalition (NUIC) described the process in a PDF document under a section appropriately titled “What is the Method to This Madness?”:
• Schools are required to file a report in November and June of each school year.
• In November, the schools must submit an immunization report to the Utah State Health Dept identifying children who are conditional admissions or out of compliance with the Utah School Rule.
• If a student is out of compliance on the June report, the Utah Immunization Program will collect the information and submit it to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) to determine weighted pupil unit funds for each public school district in accordance with USOE policies and Utah Statutory Code (Section 53A-11-301).
• This means decreased funding for schools. Without money, schools don’t function.11
But don’t believe for a second that vaccine sociopaths are satisfied only with free access to the bodies of children. They already have a coercive adult vaccination plan in the works and their syringes lined up and ready to stick it to adults. In recent years, the National Vaccine Program Office published its latest version of the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP). The 67-page document is a masterpiece of propaganda and Orwellian doublespeak. According to the Plan, “the benefits of vaccination are not realized equally across the U.S. population. Adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States, and significant racial and ethnic disparities also exist.”12 The full vision of the Plan is revealed in the following paragraph:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Plan (NVP), released in 2010, is a road map for vaccines and immunization programs for the decade 2010–2020. While the NVP provides a vision for improving protection from vaccine-preventable diseases across the lifespan, vaccination coverage levels among adults are not on track to meet Healthy People 2020 targets. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee and numerous stakeholder groups have emphasized the need for focused attention on adult vaccines and vaccination. . . . The National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP) outlined here results from the recognition that progress has been slow and that there is a need for a national adult immunization strategic plan [emphasis in original].13
Vaccine architects propose to solve the unfortunate disparity in racial, ethnic, and age-related vaccination rates by employing the same strategies they use to get parents to submit to vaccinating their children: deception, coercion, and extortion.
Aiding “federal and nonfederal partners” and stakeholders, the NAIP “aims to leverage the unique opportunity presented by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.” The CDC further explains on its website:
Under the Affordable Care Act, non-grandfathered, private health plans will cover a range of recommended preventive services with no cost-sharing (such as copays and deductibles) by the beneficiary, including vaccinations recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).14
These anything-but-free “free” services cover pediatric vaccines as well as the following vaccines for adults: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Herpes Zoster, Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus vaccine for females, Influenza, MMR, Meningococcal, Pneumococcal, DTP, and Varicella.15
The Affordable Care Act also plays a role in the coercive practice of mandated flu shots for healthcare workers. A member of the Colorado Health Care Workers Against Forced Vaccination organization described how Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reduces payment amounts to hospitals based on “summary data on influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel.”16 The Advisory Board, a health care advisory organization, crunched the numbers in a 2013 article to show how the CMS plan spanks the bottom line of healthcare organizations:
For the first time this year, hospitals are being asked to report influenza vaccination rates among health care personnel under Medicare’s quality-reporting program, or pay a fine. The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates that a 100-bed hospital that fails to comply could forfeit $320,000. . . .
After implementing a mandatory vaccine or mask program in 2009, Nashville-based HCA—with 162 hospitals and 204,000 employees—increased its vaccination rate above 90% for the past three consecutive flu seasons. Before that, coverage at HCA facilities ranged between 20% and 74%.17
“Vaccine or mask” is only part of the strategy that the plan employs to “[i]mprove community demand for adult immunizations.” The CMS trains health care organizations in the art of “Influenza Vaccination Strategies.” The strategies are necessary because “National health care worker vaccination rates are hovering around 40%. . . .”18
The tactics of the Vaccine Big Brother range from innocuous to outright malevolent:
• Implement declination forms (i.e., all health care workers will receive the vaccination unless they sign a form declining the administration of the vaccine). Declination forms can improve their employee vaccination rates substantially from one year to the next.
• Provide small financial or nonfinancial incentives, such as gift cards to local coffee shops, or introducing competition among departments within the organization.
• If employee has contraindications for the influenza vaccination, require that he/she wear a mask throughout the flu season.
• Provide education materials or lunch and learn type sessions for staff and make use of internal staff newsletters.
• Make the vaccinations mandatory for employees. Consequences of non-vaccination may result in termination or suspension of employment.19
As discussed previously, if the mask requirement were based on hard science, flu vaccine recipients would be forced to wear them, not those who abstain from the vaccine. And as also discussed, the mandatory flu vaccine requirement is a fiscal-based policy masquerading behind the thin façade of public health seen most starkly in the firing of a pregnant nurse for refusing the jab.20 And why not? According to the Plan, pregnant women are an “adult population.”21
Other examples of coercive and punitive vaccine legislation targeting adults abound. Shortly after California legislators betrayed the majority of their constituents with the passage of SB 277, Governor Brown signed into law SB 792, requiring parents who volunteer at public and private daycare and preschools to submit to the MMR, TDaP, and yearly flu shots. Those who refuse are now barred from volunteering in the classroom.22
The University of California system jumped on the Disneyland hysteria bandwagon by requiring students to submit to vaccinations for “measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, meningococcus, tetanus, and whooping cough, under a plan set to take effect in 2017.”23 Del Bigtree, producer of Vaxxed, blasted the university’s regents in a public meeting in June 2016, telling them that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, that the CDC is a cesspool of corruption, and that mandatory vaccinations violate the religious and philosophical beliefs of some UC students.24
Not only do mandatory vaccinations violate religious and philosophical beliefs, they violate common sense, logic, and basic math skills, traits that are apparently lacking among UC administrators. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made a few computations on meningitis vaccine mandates and found them to make sense only for those who profit from the mandates:
My opposition to new meningitis mandates for every New York State seventh and twelfth grader has nothing to do with autism and everything to do with arithmetic. . . . Meningitis is a rare disease that [affected] only 390 people nationally last year. FDA and industry testing show the meningitis vaccine to be unusually low efficacy and high risk. The manufacturers’ inserts predict that 1% to 1.3% of inoculated children will suffer “serious adverse effects.” CDC’s Pink Book forecasts that 0.3% of these will die from the vaccine. Of the 400,000 New York school children inoculated annually, some 4,000 will become ill and nine will die in order to prevent around four people from contracting the disease. At between $84 and $117 per shot, and with the requirement for a two-shot series, the law is an $80 million annual windfall for vaccine manufacturers at taxpayer expense. This math makes sense only to the pharmaceutical companies and the Albany politicians who have taken their money.25
The trend is clear: access to employment, public education, public space, public services, public transportation, health insurance, etc., will increasingly be tied to vaccination status. Welcome to the world of the future, where wealthy people and their fellow elites will be the only ones free from the scourge of compulsory vaccinations.
To gain a better view of the dystopian vaccine culture of the future, one need look no further than America’s current armed forces. Whether young people join the military to be all that they can be, to defend their country, to fight the war on terrorism, or just to keep themselves off the streets and out of jail, few if any have any idea that when they commit to give their all for their country, their “all” includes the unconditional use of their bodies to test vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.
According to Heather Fraser, author of The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, this is not a new development. Fraser wrote, “The tradition of compulsory injections for US soldiers began in World War I (1914-1918) with vaccines for typhoid, cholera, tetanus, smallpox, and other diseases.”26
The New York Times reported in 1918 that “Elmer N. Olson of Goodrich, Minn. . . . refused to submit to vaccination. He was tried by general court-martial and sentenced to fifteen years in the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth.”27 Dr. William Osler explained in his book Influence of Vaccination Upon Other Diseases why military personnel such as Olson would risk court-martial and imprisonment over vaccination:
Our recent “vaccination” wars have presented a dismal picture of paralysis among the soldiers with large hospital wards filled with paraplegics (paralysis of both sides) and hemiplegics (paralysis of one side.) Thus we see that the doctors know and the government knows what vaccination is doing to our service men and civilians. Why have they turned their “blind side” to it and allowed it to continue?28
Osler’s use of the phrase “vaccination wars” is thought-provoking. War profiteers teach soldiers that they war against tyranny and terrorists in the same way that vaccine profiteers teach The Herd that vaccines war against the terror of germs. Both classes of profiteers are the real terrorists, and both profit from the exploitation of the bodies of American military personnel.
If doctors and the government were blind to the racket of vaccination wars a century ago, their blindness has only increased. Following is the US military vaccination schedule as of 2003, a schedule that makes the vaccinations of the First World War look bland by comparison:
Anthrax |
6 doses + annual |
Hep A |
3 + boosters |
Influenza A & B |
1 Annual |
Jap Enceph |
3 + biannual |
MMR (Live) |
1 |
Meningococcal MGC |
1 every 3 years |
Pneumococcal 123; PPV-23 |
1 |
Polio Inactivated IPV |
1 booster dose |
Rabies |
3 doses |
Smallpox (Live) |
1 every 10 years |
Td; TT |
1 every 10 years |
Typhoid Injectable |
1 every 2 years |
Varicella (Live) |
2 doses if needed |
Yellow Fever (Live) |
1 every 10 years.29 |
Representative Dan Burton’s committee totaled the amount of mercury US soldiers of the 1990s could potentially be exposed to from thimerosal-containing vaccines. By the EPA’s standards, the maximum safe limit for a 180-pound person is 8.16 micrograms per day, yet soldiers were receiving from 110.5 micrograms to 135.5 micrograms in one day. As documented in the committee’s Mercury in Medicine Report, the following account demonstrates that the US military is not only guilty of poisoning its soldiers, it’s also guilty of failing to acknowledge the poisoning and failing to initiate effective medical protocols to treat and recover vaccine-wounded soldiers:
The Committee received documentation from one Air Force pilot who suffered from serious symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. After failing to have his medical issues resolved through the military or the Veterans Administration (VA) medical system, Captain Frank Schmuck, a pilot, became so ill that he was no longer able to fly. He sought medical treatment outside the military medical system and was tested for heavy metals, and was found to have toxic levels of mercury in his system. After chelation therapy, he returned to good health and has resumed flying. Gulf War Syndrome victims are not routinely tested for heavy metal toxicity or treated with chelation therapy by the military or the VA.
Given the lack of progress in finding other successes with recovery from this condition, this is an issue that both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the VA should be aggressively evaluating on behalf of Gulf War veterans.30
Mercury is only one component of the military’s toxic and abusive vaccine program, and Captain Schmuck is one of the more fortunate victims of that program. Most lack the resources or knowledge to seek out and obtain medical treatment provided by vaccine-informed medical professionals outside the military system. Several veterans have shared their stories in documentaries, on the Internet, and in congressional hearings. The 2003 documentary Direct Order reveals the widespread and common injuries that American soldiers suffered at the hands of their own government that forced troops to submit to its experimental and unapproved anthrax vaccine.31 Tech Sgt Jeff Moore, one of the soldiers interviewed in the film, stated,
The crew was pulled aside and told to march into this tent. They were told they were going to be given a shot, it was classified. And it had to do with livestock and they were not to talk about it and there were to be no side effects from it and that the shot would not be annotated into their shot records.32
Of course, “There would be no side effects” is an edict, a policy statement, or in military parlance, a direct order. Lieutenant Doug Rokke backed up Moore’s statement in an interview included in the documentary Beyond Treason: Depleted Uranium & Anthrax. Rokke said,
Our team was tasked to put together the anthrax vaccine program, but we were also ordered to not record lots, batches, doses, who got them, what their reactions were, when they got them, or how many they got. Direct orders.33
Lieutenant Rich Rovet testified before the House Committee on Government Reform in July 1999, saying that soldiers who violated orders by suffering vaccine injuries were accused of being “malingerers, liars, and hypochondriacs.” Their symptoms included dizziness, ringing in their ears, joint pain, muscle pain, memory impairment, constant fatigue, numbness and tingling in various parts of their bodies, photosensitivity, miscarriage, swollen and painful testicles, cardiac problems, chills and fever greater than 48 hours post-vaccination, rash, swelling, and medically confirmed hyperthyroidism. The lieutenant further stated,
All through the squadrons on base, people are afraid to come forward for they are going to lose their flying status and lose their career if they come forward. For every one individual that comes forward, there are three individuals that will not.34
OGR Committee member, Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, affirmed Rovet’s statement at the same hearing when he offered the following:
It appears that this vaccination program was initiated in a hasty manner, before a proper amount of research on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine was completed.
Even more distressing has been the reports of deliberate downplaying of adverse reactions among our military personnel who have received the shots to date. These reports, of course, are all too familiar for those of us who investigated the Gulf War Syndrome issue.
Then as now, there was the all-too-frequent case of commanders who are more interested with following the official public relations message rather than being concerned with the welfare of the personnel under their command.35
Col. Felix Grieder refused to sacrifice the welfare of the personnel under his command. In 1999, Grieder shut down the vaccination program at Dover Air Force Base after he learned that his soldiers were being used as guinea pigs to test both the anthrax vaccine and the adjuvant squalene. The move ended Grieder’s military career.36
The Delaware News Journal reported that it had “uncovered documents and videos that reveal that Pentagon officials lied; that US troops were given an experimental concoction of anthrax vaccine laced with squalene.” According to the Journal, squalene is
a fat-like substance that occurs naturally in the body. Squalene boosts a vaccine’s effect, but some scientists say injecting even trace amounts of it into the body can cause serious illness. Many soldiers have suffered permanent harm as a result.37
The Journal wrapped up its article with this statement: “Dozens of Web sites and support groups are dedicated to linking autoimmune disorders to the shot. The vaccine has been the subject of several scientific studies that conclude it could be a factor in making soldiers sick.”38 Gary Matsumoto makes the same case in his book Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers—and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims.39
Congressman Gilman’s final statement in the Anthrax Vaccine Adverse Reactions hearing put the Pentagon on notice: Congress was not going to ignore the ethical and medical issues surrounding the military’s experimental use of the anthrax vaccine. “Mr. Chairman,” said Gilman, “these hearings are important, as they help keep the Department of Defense focused on an uncomfortable issue and remind both officials at the Pentagon and the members of the public of Congress’ determination to fully address this subject.”40
Just over two months later, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13139 euphemistically titled Improving Health Protection of Military Personnel Participating in Particular Military Operations.41 The Order authorizes the use of unapproved and experimental products on members of the armed forces without informed consent or in some cases without any consent at all.42
The president may not have been aware of the fact that the protection he offered military personnel with his Executive Order was unconstitutional and it also destroyed the protection embodied in the Nuremberg Code, which was written to protect individuals against inhumane experimentation like that carried out by the Nazis on prisoners. The first tenet of the code reads, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”
The following year, Clinton approved mandatory vaccinations for the entire US military. A company named Bioport “was given a single source contract to supply and manufacture anthrax vaccine to the entire 2.5 million military members.” Bioport was coowned by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William J. Crowe. Crowe was the first military commander to endorse Clinton for presidency in 1992.43 Apparently, World War II didn’t bring an end to fascism.
When Direct Order came out in 2003, it included a brief summary of the military’s use of the anthrax vaccine including the following:
Since 1998, when the vaccinations began, nearly 500 active-duty service-members have refused the vaccine, and more than 100 have been court-martialed. According to government figures, approximately 500 to 1,000 pilots and flight crew members have quit, resigned or transferred from the Air National Guard or reserves rather than take the vaccine.44
Sheila Ealey’s family was not only impacted by severe childhood vaccine injury, her husband, a career military man, was given a choice: get the anthrax vaccines or get out. Ealey described the experience with power and indignation in the Q & A session following the screening of the movie Vaxxed in Compton, California:
My husband served 26 years in the military and he wanted to make one more promotion and stay 30 years, but he was going to be forced to take five injections of anthrax. Five injections of anthrax! Let me tell you, he got out. . . . We were in the military when this happened to my son. And what I can tell you is the military has the highest rate of [autism compared to] any other population and you are not allowed to bring any charges against anything medically related against the military if you’re active duty or retired.
This is a new form of slavery.
Democracy in this country is deteriorating as I speak. You’re under fascism and medical tyranny. And the only way to take it back . . . is to stand up and rise up. You have to stand for something. You have to be willing to put your life on the line for this cause, because if not, your children are not going to make it and you’re not going to make it. The pharmaceutical industry has developed a client from the womb to the grave and it breaks you. Autism breaks you. It’s the most expensive disability of all disabilities.45
Ealey was not the first to label the practice of mandatory vaccination as slavery. In 1902, John W. Hodge, MD, published a book titled The Vaccine Superstition in which he wrote, “. . . compulsory vaccination ranks with human slavery and religious persecution, as one of the most flagrant outrages upon the rights of the human race.” The doctor made a total of 22 equally powerful statements arising from
. . . a careful consideration of the history of vaccination gleaned from an impartial and comprehensive study of vital statistics, and pertinent data from every reliable source and after an experience derived from having vaccinated 3,000 subjects. . . .46
The National Vaccine Information Center provides a timeline of important vaccine-related events. One such event occurred in October 2004, when
US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an injunction blocking DOD from ordering US soldiers [to] receive anthrax vaccine without their informed consent, citing the reactive anthrax vaccine’s “experimental” status because the FDA had never licensed it as effective for use against weaponized inhalation anthrax. [DOD would subsequently get around the injunction by requesting the Secretary of Health and Human Services utilize recently acquired Project Bioshield powers and issue an “Emergency Use” authorization.]47
Project Bioshield is essentially the civilian equivalent of Clinton’s 1999 Executive Order. The Associated Press shared more on the subject on July 21, 2004:
President Bush on Wednesday signed legislation to develop and stockpile vaccines and other antidotes to chemical and germ attacks, saying the measure will “rally the great promise of American science and innovation to confront the greatest danger of our time.”
The legislation, called Project BioShield, provides the drug industry with incentives to research and develop bioterrorism countermeasures. It speeds up the approval process of antidotes and, in an emergency, allows the government to distribute certain treatments before the Food and Drug Administration has approved them. . . .
U.S. officials are hoping that Project BioShield will yield enough new-generation anthrax vaccine to dose 25 million people. Federal health officials also hope that the $5.6 billion program will provide antidotes for botulism and anthrax, a safer smallpox vaccine and a long-awaited children’s version of an anti-radiation pill.48
George Orwell once said, “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” George W. Bush sounded just like an Orwellian character when he made the following statement in the Rose Garden as he signed Project BioShield into law:
Every American can be certain that their government will continue doing everything in our power to prevent a terrorist attack and if the terrorists do strike we will be better prepared to defend our people because of the good law I sign today.49
Project BioShield authorized the government to spend “$5.6 billion in funding over 10 years. . . .”50 Part of those funds were used to turn existing pathogens into life forms that were even more pathogenic. Richard Ebright, a professor of biochemistry at Rutgers University and director of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, didn’t think Bush’s “good law” was all that great in 2004, but he grew even more dismayed to see President Obama breathe new life into the Project in 2013 with a five-year extension and another $2.8 billion. Ebright said in an interview with The Verge in 2013, “It’s hard to imagine that someone thought creating new pandemic pathogens would be a good strategy for defending against pandemic pathogens. It reflects the clear lack of anyone in charge.”51 The biochemist may be right, but it may also reflect clear evidence that the wrong people are in charge, since they are some of the same people who’ve been orchestrating vaccine policy for decades.
Carl Franzen, the author of The Verge article, wrote that the most disconcerting fact among several disconcerting facts is that
the very same parent agency in charge of funding drugs for the national stockpile, HHS, is also the one that is separately funding research into new diseases that could result in a bioterror or accidental infection, which would in turn demand a response from the national stockpile.52
In Ebright’s words, “The activities of Project Bioshield are directly undermined by HHS funding the development of potential bioweapons agents. These are clear cross purposes. Would any sane government do that? Absolutely not.”53
Would a government that is run by sociopaths “do that”? Absolutely. It would, it has, it is, and unless stopped, it will continue to do so.
Vaccine terrorists have capitalized on the alleged threat of bioterrorism to turn the stockpiling of vaccines into a third vaccine market. Unlike the pediatric and adult vaccine markets, the vast majority of stockpiled vaccines will most likely never be used. They will remain in warehouses until they expire, are disposed of, and then replaced with more vaccines. Every step in the cycle will transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers into the pockets of profiteers and politicians for products that the public will likely neither see nor use. Idle vaccines sitting in a stockpile also don’t bear the costs associated with vaccine injury, death, and litigation. This scam will grow like cancer until sane minds bring it to an end.
An analysis of vaccine-injured military personnel could lead to the conclusion that vaccine injuries are the largest case of “friendly fire” in the history of the US military. But such is not the case. “Friendly fire” is defined as the inadvertent or accidental killing of fellow soldiers. There is substantial evidence to suggest, a fraction of which is presented in this chapter, that at least some of the vaccine-induced injury to military personnel, as well as the denial of and the failure to treat such injury, is not friendly. It’s government-sanctioned experimentation in violation of ethical codes and decency, providing yet another example of the misuse of power over powerless people.
The full extent of the government’s misuse of power is seen in the US military’s plan to develop human biofactories through genetic modification attempting to use “living, breathing humans as their own antibody factors.”54
It is, or at least it should be, a self-evident fact that individuals, corporate entities, and governments do not have the right to alter human DNA. Neither do they have the ability to contain their laboratory creations. The fact that the US military—the world’s greatest purveyor of violence and greatest source of environmental pollution—is supporting such research should be a cause of great concern. The combined hubris, ignorance, and quest for power in such an endeavor holds the potential to unleash myriad known and yet unknown consequences, including the destruction of the human race.
There’s great irony in the fact that those who believe they’re fighting for freedom from tyranny don’t have the freedom to control what their own government tyrants inject into their bodies. It’s also a great irony that the majority of American civilians are all too willing to allow vaccine sociopaths to protect them in the same way military personnel are protected: by allowing their medical and religious freedoms to be trampled.
Orwell was right: “Freedom is slavery.”
Sane voices are far too few, but they give cause for hope. In 1999, one month before military personnel described their vaccine injuries to the Oversight & Government Reform committee, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons testified before the OGR’s Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Their statement is more relevant today than ever before:
Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (including studies that are too small, too short, and too limited in populations represented), which is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism. The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding the independent judgments of patients, parents, and attending physicians, even if this were ethically or legally acceptable.
AAPS opposes federal mandates for vaccines, on principle, on the grounds that they are:
• An unconstitutional expansion of the power of the federal government.
• An unconstitutional delegation of power to a public-private partnership.
• An unconstitutional and destructive intrusion into the patient-physician and parent-child relationships.
• A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.
• A violation of rights to free speech and to the practice of one’s religion (which may require one to keep oaths).55
US Representative Ron Paul, a medical doctor, gave a speech in 2011 titled “Government Vaccines — Bad Policy, Bad Medicine” as the keynote speaker at the International Medical Council on Vaccination. He said,
No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.56
Ten months prior to making this statement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that drug companies would no longer be liable for vaccine injuries even when the companies were aware of design defects and could have made a safer vaccine. In the words of Barbara Loe Fisher:
From now on, drug companies selling vaccines in America will not be held accountable by a jury of our peers in a court of law if those vaccines brain damage us but could have been made less toxic. . . .
If you get paralyzed by a flu shot or your child has a serious reaction to a vaccine required for school and becomes learning disabled, epileptic, autistic, asthmatic, diabetic or mentally retarded, you are on your own. . . .
This is not public health. This is exploitation of a captive people by a pharmaceutical industry seeking unlimited profits and by doctors in positions of authority, who have never seen a vaccine they did not want to mandate.
It is a drug company stockholder’s dream, a health care consumer’s worst nightmare and a prescription for tyranny.57
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a brilliant dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court’s ruling with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining her:
The majority’s decision today disturbs that careful balance based on a bare policy preference that it is better “to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries.” . . . To be sure, reasonable minds can disagree about the wisdom of having juries weigh the relative costs and benefits of a particular vaccine design. But whatever the merits of the majority’s policy preference, the decision to bar all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers is one that Congress must make, not this Court. . . . By construing §22(b)(1) to pre-empt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers for covered vaccines, the majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements. This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result. I respectfully dissent.58
According to Sotomayor, by ruling in favor of the industry, the Supreme Court usurped the authority of Congress. In August 2016, the US Department of Health and Human Services/CDC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that, if implemented, would not only usurp the authority of Congress, but also trample the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. By doing so, it would solve, once and for all, industry’s growing problem of how to control the vaccine-informed public. Titled “Control of Communicable Disease,” the proposal purports to “provide additional clarity to various safeguards to prevent the importation and spread of communicable diseases affecting human health into the United States and interstate.”59
What the HHS/CDC really intends to do is give itself the power to detain healthy people en masse without appeal. Restricting public travel appears to be one of the main hammers the government will use to pound the public into submission, including submission to mandatory vaccination.
Less than three months later, President Obama signed an Executive Order titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats.”60 The presidential order appears to be nothing more than the global version of the CDC’s “Control of Communicable Disease” agenda, essentially calling on the entire world to march in lockstep with the USA’s Global Health Security Agenda. It is highly unlikely that the timing of the two documents is coincidental. Inasmuch as the CDC’s financially driven mission to control and prevent disease has resulted in billions in profit and millions of dysfunctional, damaged, and diseased people, and inasmuch as controlling and preventing population growth is a cornerstone of US foreign policy, the people behind this agenda likely represent a far greater threat to the human race than the world’s infectious diseases combined.
George Orwell’s prophesied future is within sight. With the government’s boot pressing ever harder on the face of humanity, well-meaning but misguided medical professionals may soon be free to forcibly inject virtually every human being with every toxic vaccine manufactured by one of the most corrupt if not the most corrupt institutions in the world: the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this scenario is the fact that millions of individuals appear more than happy to surrender their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in exchange for their own destruction. Shawn Siegel, a noted modern-day anti-vaccinationist, shares his admiration for those individuals who have thus far pulled off one of the greatest crimes in the history of the world:
I simply have to admire the hubris, the gall, of the global cartel who many decades ago commandeered the vaccination paradigm, morphing it into a most surreal program—an Auschwitz Lite; an Auschwitz with gates flung wide open, into which people flock willingly; eagerly. Should they all hang by the neck ‘til dead, as they deserve, my admiration will endure.61
Who will be left hanging in the end remains yet to be seen.