|Vaccination Liberation - Information|
Ingredients of Vaccines
Artificially Sweetened Times
Books Videos Tapes
100+ Anti-Vax links
Questions and Answers:
What about adopting a child and giving no vaccinations?
We have no personal experience to help guide you. However, several information sources and suggestions follow:
The social worker who advises that a letter from a doctor would be beneficial is giving good advice.
After some comments is a URL to a 'Refusal letter' which can be printed.
Also the URL for the laws of Montana re school/vaccination exemptions, a portion of which is at this page's end.
It might be well to state in writing to the Judge that the US government has paid about $1 Billion in damages to individuals and/or parents for vaccine damages since 1986.(NVICP)
Also, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives
11,000 to 14,000 reports yearly in the USA since 1990. A 23 month period
of the VAERS Database can be found at:
Also each vaccine comes with an insert which gives a required minimum of known side effects, contra-indications and a list of ingredients which often serves as an eye opener. It might be good to attach inserts for each vaccine in a letter to the judge.
In addition, Tort law describes all medical treatment as:
What can be done to relieve adverse effects of vaccination?
Suggestion: go to www.watercure2.com.
Check out Dr. Shultze's program: 1-800-HERB-DOC (437-2362) and ask for their "incurables program". Totally worth charging up your card for if you want permanent wellness and recovery.
Also see the article "Reversing Autism" on this website: Reversing Autism
Links to detoxification information is at: http://www.vaclib.org/links/detox.htm
Back To Basics of Health series: http://www.vaclib.org/basic/health/index.htm
Answer #3: Click for Article on Vitamin K Controversy on Vaclib Site
Vaccines do work, don't they?
We understand that many have a belief system that purports that vaccines "work". We have looked for an adequate scientific study that proves that vaccines are both effective and safe but never found such a study.
Adequate scientific tests:
--The trial must be monitored by independent scientifically knowledgeable people who are paid by potential consumers, not by manufacturers.
--All groups must contain populations with the the same diversity of living conditions and diet and be exposed in a natural manner to the same microbes.
--The vaccinated and placebo groups must have the vaccine and placebo administered under what is called double blind conditions. Double blind means neither the people or the doctors involved know who receives vaccines and who receives placebos. Copies of the record of what each injection contains and who receives it must remain in the possession of both the consumer paid supervisors as well as the manufacturers' representatives.
--The health of all groups must be "actively" checked on a long term basis, preferably over several years. Disease incidence must be carefully measured in all groups and must include ALL diseases not just the target disease.
--True vaccine "effectiveness" must be measured and calculated by comparing numbers of target disease incidence in the vaccinated to incidence in the unvaccinated. This measurement of true effectiveness is vastly different than the antibody counts usually used to claim 'effectiveness'. Antibody measurements are usually termed 'efficacy' figures.
--Each group must be large enough in size and of an appropriate age such that a significant expectation of target disease incidence exists. The CDC requires 20 cases of disease for effectiveness calculations.
-- In addition, all data must be accounted for. Test results must contain initial criteria for who was included in the tests. Individuals removed from the test after the first and subsequent vaccinations must be listed as to cause of removal and must have continued active monitoring of their health.
--It comes as an unpleasant surprise to many to find that actual testing
we can say that true effectiveness of vaccines is not measured before
marketing and safety data is seriously biased and usually only tells us that the vaccine will be "tolerated by a
healthy individual" but this is no measurement of how an unhealthy individual will react to the vaccine.
Because no independent
consumer paid group monitors vaccine testing, this further casts doubt on the validity of vaccine company safety and
Dr. Viera Scheibner wrote a book entitled, Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System. This book is available from Amazon.com. Dr. Scheibner documents her studies with CotWatch in this book. CotWatch is the breathing monitor she and her husband developed to prevent Cot Death also known as SIDS. What she discovered is that damage to the nervous system of babies occurs due to vaccines is sometimes followed by failure to breath.
What is the truth about the measles vaccine?
Measles Incidence Before and After
Supplementary Vaccination Activities
Q6. Is there thimerosal in modern vaccines?
[Note: many old vaccines have not been removed from stock. So the fact that modern vaccines do not use mercury as a preservative does not mean that one automatically gets thimerosal free vaccines. See below for use of thimerosal in "manufacturing" so 'thimerosal free' may not be what is claimed.]
Apparently at the recent congressional hearings, it was stated that the MMR
vaccine does not use thimerosal as a preservative. Hmmmm.
The plot thickens. According to Liz Birt, who is in one of my lists, there is thimerosal in MMR. I had checked the PDR and it said there were no preservatives used. However..........
Sandy from Alaska
It is in there believe me. We sent
samples to Boyd Haley's laboratory and he detected it. It is not disclosed
because it is used in the"manufacturing process" and is not used as a
What do you think about MSEHPA?
For various comments and letters on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, see the next:
MSEHPA index of articles
Why is Vaccination such a controversial matter?To understand the vaccination controversy, one must know and understand several things.
The following 5 items are basically non controversial but are highly
2) After the introduction of vaccines, MORTALITY decline remained basically the same as pre vaccine.
3) There are about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines per year. FDA estimates this is about 1 in 10 of total, other studies say 1 in 40, a manufacturer of vaccines says 1 in 50 and CDC has suggested it may as little as 1 in 100 of the total. Thus we have a minimum of 90,000 and a maximum of about 900,000 with the typical 'conservative' estimate being 300,000 serious adverse reactions per year due to vaccines.
4) No vaccine on the market has ever been subjected to a truly adequate scientific test proving it is EFFECTIVE and SAFE.
5) The government 'insurance agency' pays $50,000,000 per year to claimants for vaccine damage. This is only one fourth of applicants. Applicants are only a fraction of the total potential claimants.
Certain words above are capitalized to high light their importance so if we argue it will be 'apples to apples' not apples to oranges.
Disease Incidence vs Mortality IncidenceMortality: imagine you visit a rural community with a doctor serving as medical examiner (coroner) it is obvious that the same individual will be less effective at diagnosing living patients compared to the skill of determining the cause of death in a fatality. This is due to the greater freedom one may exercise with a corpse. Claims that Disease Incidence dropped greatly after vaccine was introduced is highly subject to both subconscious and conscious bias. In addition, one must account for what would have been the continuing natural decline had vaccination not been practiced. It is clear that if we base our judgment in this area on mortality, not incidence, then vaccines made an INSIGNIFICANT contribution to modern health standards.
Insignificant is a nice word for the experts to use because it allows for a small benefit, zero benefit, or small detriment to all fall within 'insignificant'.
Real value of vaccinationIt should be noted that there are records of epidemics where the vaccinated:
caught the disease first,
had the most disease incidence,
and had the most severe cases.
None the less, too further understand the true value of the disease incidence
claims, let us generate a hypothetical case.
50 measles cases in the unvaccinated group.
40 measles cases in the placebo group.
20 measles cases in the vaccinated group.
Now the data above is hypothetical, but lets give a REAL World interpretation so we understand what it would truly mean if one ran into such a claim.
First we know the the health departments will watch the unvaccinated like a hawk and that 50 will be accurate to the 'last child'.
Because the mind is powerful, and we have some information on 'placebo effect' it is not unreasonable to assume the 20% reduction in disease incidence in the placebo group due to faith. (But note that modern 'tests' do not actually measure this effect.)
However, the vaccinated group were injected with what we can fairly say was literally a 'concoction of corrupt crap', or is it actually 'a mild beneficial poison'?
Is the above 'data' real, or did bias creep somehow into our 'double blind test'?
For the sake of stomping a fallacy into the ground, lets assume that here (and here only), the data is 'real' but at a minimum vastly incomplete because it contains no data on safety. Now lets look at our controversy.
One side says, given the above data, it is obvious the vaccine
A: "prevented disease and improved health".
The other sides, says,
B: "the vaccine interfered with healing, and caused disease."
What scientific test would be required to settle this argument?
If A is correct then fever and rash, the symptoms for one disease decreased and there were insignificant side effects from the vaccine in the nature of other disease symptoms.
If B is correct, then it makes no difference whether the incidence data is correct, because there exists sufficient knowledge to know that chronic diseases increase in significant amounts in the vaccinated.
Fever and Rash are healing symptoms
of 'acute beneficial cleansing episodes'.
The following is from an FDA site:
First, no mention is made of the necessary group of healthy unvaccinated children, or even the rate of this disease prior to the vaccine era. One of reasons that the pro vaccine powers that be avocate mandatory vaccination is to eliminate the very group of people that can prove the vaccine is either unneeded or unsafe. We are told an estimate of disease incidence for the USA but is that valid for California, or even the USA? What association does other vaccines have as a CAUSE for pneumococcal diseases. It is possible the disease (estimated) incidence figures are inflated for vaccinated children and even more inflated for unvaccinated children.
Note in the FDA announcement the statement, "The controlled, double- blind trial". However, other reports of the trial tell us that the "CONTROL" was actually an experimental Hep-C Vaccine. In other words, a toxic concoction was substituted for a placebo. A placebo is supposed to be inert and harmless. This substitution certainly biases the test as far as determining safety. Either vaccine, the Prevnar or the experimental Hep-C may cause any number of diseases. Comparing each to the other gives biased results for both safety and disease incidence rates.
Secondly: the test is conducted by an organization with a financial interest in the outcome, but no mention is made of an adequate monitoring by independent scientific personal.
Thirdly: 16,000 +1400 = 17,400 pneumococcal disease cases in the USA per year are estimated. In 5 years of child population at 4 million per year x 5 years = 20,000,000 (approx) children. In plain language, this disease incidence is less than 1 child per thousand or somewhat higher in the less than 2 year olds. This means that in a years time we would expect about 20 disease incidence cases in each half of the study. If the estimates are correct! And it would be common experience that they are greatly inflated.
We are not told how many children were rejected from the test before picking the 38,000. All you have to do is reject 1% of the child population, namely those who have had previous adverse vaccine reactions or who are a part of families who have allergies, especially to vaccines, to bias the test severely as the test group would have far less than average disease incidence. What data is the 100% and 90% effectiveness based upon? We are told nothing about how adverse reactions were determined but as both halves of the vaccine study are vaccinated we know it is certain the 'safety data' is based on flawed methodology testing. We are told nothing about unvaccinated children's rate of disease. We are not told what the "placebo" composition was but typically what is labeled 'placebo' in vaccine trials is a poison (I.E. an untested vaccine, or vaccine fluids, etc) in order to bias the tests in favor of the vaccine. In short, many will not feel it safe and beneficial to give this vaccine to their child based on these tests.
We urge concerned individuals not to take others freedom to provide the very thing needed to prove or disprove vaccine practice which is a large number of unvaccinated children living in the same time, place and manner other than vaccination.
Buyers effectiveness versus Sellers effectivenessAs to the question above on 'effectiveness', let us look at another claim found on the FDA site:
"Fighting the Flu
The 70 - 90 percent effectiveness mentioned above is actually 70 - 90 percent efficacy. So whats the difference? Efficacy is a substitute for 'real/buyers effectiveness' and is actually 'sellers effectiveness'. True effictiveness is based on a comparison between the disease incidence in a vaccinated group and an unvaccinated group, both of which possess the same health potential other than vaccination. Efficacy is based on antibody counts, which are approximately worthless in predicting who is immune. So antibody counts are 'sold' as effectiveness but have nothing to do with real effectiveness. It is rare that genuine effectiveness is even measured in vaccine testing. For the Flu the true effectiveness of the vaccine can be measured only after the flu season has passed.