Peace, Love, Flags… and Ground War???

“Mounting a ground war against anti-vaxxers.”

This Boston Globe editorial quotes a Vermont State employee. Does the State of Vermont endorse such language, which portends violence against a group of citizens?

Just one week after US Marine Gen. Robert Neller warned that a conflict with North Korea could involve an exceptionally bloody ground war, the Boston Globe quietly printed an editorial, titled:  “Mounting a ground war against anti-vaxxers.”

This Globe editorial quotes a Vermont State employee and concludes by saying that , “Wise state policy, micro-targeted toward local schools and communities, is the best remedy for anti-vax luddites… who are noisy peddlers of a conspiracy-centric belief system that’s more akin to religious zeal than science.

A “ground war” against those who have vaccine safety concerns? Against those who choose alternate pathways to wellness? Against those who watched their children’s health demise after shots?

See: Vaccine Consumer Injury Testimonials Recorded in Burlington, Vermont.

Ground War. This is not something to be taken lightly. Is this the sort of image that Vermont wishes to associate itself with, as state employees, working with the CDC and pharma, attempt to convince more Vermonters to take a flu shot, or to vaccinate their babies to get them into daycare – or else?

It will be a very, very kinetic, physical, violent fight over some really, really tough ground and everybody is going to have to be mentally prepared,” said  Neller, as quoted by CNN.

No kidding.

Although the editorial title was chosen by the Boston Globe, we would like to know:

Does the State of Vermont endorse such language, which portends violence against a group of citizens?

We would also like to know whether our health department played a role in this editorial. And: why are the Vermont data quoted in the article not available to the general public?   We are growing tired of being stonewalled by the Vermont Department of Health.

So, on the very same day that many community members were raising a (political) flag in honor of the fact that ALL OF US MATTER, we sent a letter to the Governor. Here is a copy of the 2/2/2018 letter I wrote on behalf of our group. For the record – we agree that black lives do matter. Just look at the work we have undertaken to get people to understand the revelations of the CDC Whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson.

On February 6, 2018  the “Immunization Program 2017 Annual Report” suddenly appeared on the healthvermont.gov  website. The report was supposed to be delivered by January 15, 2018 to the Legislature, but it does not appear anywhere on the list of the Legislature’s “reports due.” It got posted on Feb. 6th to the website but was never delivered to the legislature. Why not?
Of note: The most recent (2017/2018) “Child Care – Annual Immunization Survey” and “K-12 Public and Independent Schools – Annual Immunization Report” remain missing, despite the fact  they would have been needed to write the annual report that was released. Where are the data?
In 2014, the Vermont Health Department openly schemed about “using data to your advantage.” Perhaps withholding data from the public will give “them” (who supposedly work for “us”) some sort of advantage in the ground war??? 
Aside from the new report appearing on the website (thanks!), Governor Scott’s office sent a bland and impotent response on February 8th.
Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns over the recent Boston Globe editorial,the staffer wrote.  “As we understand, Commissioner Levine has also received your inquiry, and the Department of Health we be in touch with you to address your concerns.”
The letter was unsigned.

We look forward to hearing more from Dr. Levine. Perhaps he is just slightly more outraged.

For the record, we did not start this “war” that is apparently being waged. We were (all of us – unvaccinated, vaccine injured, partly vaccined, those many not even thinking one iota about vaccines, etcetera) –  living, quietly, happily, peacefully and healthfully, here in our beloved state – until were were attacked by zealots who care only about killing natural health options while delivering more drugs to more people in an effort to make more money faster.

May peace be with you in these troubling times.

 

~ Jennifer Stella

March, 2014

Thank you for visiting.

Screen shot 2014-03-15 at 3.37.42 PMWe believe that vaccine choice is a human right, and that parents have the duty and legal right to make medical decisions for their children.

>Look up Vaccine Ingredients here. >Vaccine Choice FAQs.

>Learn more about the 2012 attempt to remove Vermont’s Philosophical Vaccine Exemption. (link to VTDigger/Vermontbiz)

>2014 Bills to Watch

> Q&A: Are the unvaccinated a “threat”?

Vaccine decisions are far more important than most people currently assume; this is because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” For example, see USGOV official list of injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines and USGOV update plans for vaccine injury table.

CURRENT EVENTS:

Lecture: The effect of vaccines on immunity. Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D. (Immunology) in Kelowna, BC (click for video)

Colorado parents fight to keep their right to say no to vaccines without gov’t intrusion. “Parents have a constitutional right to parent their children,” said Susan Lawson, at the Colorado Legislature Thursday re: Vaccine Exemption Education Bill.. here is the audio link… Powerful!

VCVC volunteers have paid for a table so that we may be present for “Early Childhood Day” March 12, 2014… Capitol Plaza Hotel… please join us to show your support! (contact us for more info)

NEW STUDIES

  • State parental exemption laws and vaccine uptake rates did not influence diseases but may influence reporting rates (Am. J. of Public Health).
  • Herpes Zoster (shingles) Risk Reduction through Exposure to Chickenpox Patients: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review (PLOS ONE).
  • A pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity due to fluoride and other untested chemicals presumed to be safe. (LANCET).
  • “Breakthrough” varicella (chicken pox) occurs in up to 15%-20% of vaccinated children (Medscape)

AND…Coming April 2014… Reason Magazine

The Science Is Not Settled, by Sandy Reider MD ( Feb. 2014 )

As a practicing primary care physician for the last 43 years, and as a parent since 1981, I have followed the evolution of vaccination policy and science with interest, and not a little dismay.

The number of vaccines given to children has increased significantly over the last 70 years, from four antigens in about five or six injections in 1949, to as many as 71 vaccine antigens in 53 injections by age 18 today (the number varies slightly from state to state). This includes four vaccines given in two shots to pregnant women (and thus the developing fetus), and 48 vaccine antigens given in 34 injections from birth to age six.

Each vaccine preparation, in addition to the antigen or live virus, contains many other substances, including preservatives (mercury, formaldehyde), adjuvants to hyperstimulate the immune response (aluminum), gelatin, aborted fetal DNA, viral DNA, genetically modified DNA, antibiotics, and so on. We know that the young child’s nervous and immune systems are actively developing and uniquely vulnerable, and I even wonder how many thinking adults would themselves voluntarily submit to such an invasive drug regimen?

In 1986 the National Vaccine Injury Act was passed, prohibiting individuals who feel they have been harmed by a vaccine from taking vaccine manufacturers, health agencies, or health care workers to court. At the time, vaccine producers were threatening to curtail or discontinue production because of the mounting number of lawsuits claiming injury to children, particularly related to the whole cell pertussis component of the vaccine. Once relieved of all liability, pharmaceutical corporations began rapidly increasing the number of vaccinations brought to market.

Pharmaceutical companies are now actively targeting both adolescents and adults for cradle-to-grave vaccination to combat shingles, pneumonia, human papilloma virus, influenza, whooping cough, and meningitis, with many more in the pipeline. Who wouldn’t love a business model with a captive market, no liability concerns, free advertising and promotion by government agencies, and a free enforcement mechanism from local schools? It is, truly, a drug company’s dream come true.

Judging from what one reads and hears in the popular media, it is easy to conclude that the science is settled, that the benefits of each vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and that vaccinations have played the critical role in the decline of deaths due to infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, all of which claimed many lives in the past.

However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s; measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963—and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 in the there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.

The takeaway here is that vaccination played a very minor role in the steep decline in mortality from infectious disease during the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century. Improved living standards, better nutrition, sanitary sewage disposal and clean water, and less crowded living conditions all played crucial roles.

Current immunization policy relies on the oft-repeated assertion that vaccines are safe and effective. Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine, and even the American Academy of Pediatrics have acknowledged that serious reactions, including seizures, progressive encephalopathy, and death, can and do occur. The federal vaccine injury court, which was established at the same time that vaccine manufacturers were exempted from liability, has to date paid $2.6 billion dollars in compensation for vaccine injuries. And there is ample reason to believe that the incidence of vaccine injury is strongly underreported.

Bailey has made the colorful assertion that an individual choosing not to vaccinate themselves, or their child, is akin to a person walking down the street swinging their fists (that is, their microbes) at others. Rather than indulging in broad generalizations about immunization, a close examination of data regarding the recent pertussis outbreaks may help illustrate the complexity inherent in immune function, individual susceptibility, and the spread of infectious illness.

In 2011, there were numerous outbreaks of pertussis around the United States, notably in California, Washington, and Vermont. The majority of whooping cough infections in each state were reported among well-vaccinated adolescents and young teens. There was also a slight increase in cases among infants younger than 1 year old.

In Vermont, 74 percent of individuals diagnosed with whooping cough had been “fully and appropriately vaccinated” against pertussis. Vermont Deputy Commissioner of Health Tracy Dolan stated: “We do not have any official explanation for the outbreak and have not linked it to the philosophical exemption.” In a July 2012 interview, Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease stated that: “We know there are places around the country where large numbers of people are not vaccinated [against pertussis]. However, we do not think those exemptors are driving this current wave. We think it is a bad thing that people aren’t getting vaccinated or exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon.”

It’s clear that the pertussis vaccine is not very protective against a disease that already has a very low mortality, likely because the pertussis bacterium has developed resistance, much like bacteria become resistant to antibiotics over time. In a September 2012 article, The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “protection against pertussis waned during the 5 years after the 5th dose of DTaP.”

Recent studies suggest that immunized persons, once exposed to wild Bordetella pertussis bacteria, take longer to clear the pertussis bacterium from their respiratory tract than individuals who have had natural pertussis and thus gain natural immunity. These vaccinated individuals MAY then become asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria and vectors for transmission. So those who choose to opt in can also, as Bailey puts it, “swing their microbes.”

Vaccine-induced immunity is not the same as naturally acquired immunity, and the much touted “herd immunity” resulting from mass vaccination is a far cry from natural herd immunity, the latter being much more protective, long-lasting, and transferrable to nursing infants who are then protected during their most vulnerable stage of development.

Understanding vaccine effects is complicated. The “fence” or “firewall” as Bailey puts it, is in fact a two-way street. Persons who receive vaccines containing live viruses (influenza, chickenpox, measles, etc.)may shed these and expose close contacts ( the live trivalent virus Salk polio vaccine has been discontinued in the US for just this reason ). Much has been said about all the “junk science” cited by anyone questioning vaccines (Jenny McCarthy anyone?), but even a cursory peek over that fence will reveal some very good information and science—Mary Holland’s Vaccine Epidemic and Suzanne Humphries’ Dissolving Illusions, for example.

Lumping skeptical parents with the crazies is a way to avoid legitimate questions. Such as: Should tetanus vaccination be required for entrance to school, given that tetanus is not a communicable disease? Why should hepatitis B immunization be required for school entrance, when the disease is found primarily among adult drug users and sex workers? Do we need to keep immunizing against diseases, such as chickenpox, that are almost always mild?

There is a considerable difference between giving a seriously ill child a proven life-saving medicine versus subjecting a completely healthy child to a drug that is known to cause severe, or even potentially fatal, adverse effects, however small the chance. This is an ethical issue that goes to the heart of our basic human right to informed consent to any drug treatment or medical intervention.

Given the sheer volume of vaccine promotion and propaganda, coupled with the cozy relationship between government, industry, and media, there are sufficient grounds for a healthy skepticism. Individual parents have become the last line of defense, and their choices should be respected and preserved.

Sandy Reider MD maintains a primary care practice in Lyndonville, Vermont.