Feb. 26, 2003
Testimony of Angie Vasquez,
director of the South Idaho Chapter of
Vaccination Information and Liberation.
I am here today to let you know that Idaho's vaccination law needs to be
revised. As with any law, there should be penalties for breaking the law. If
I leave this hearing today and get caught speeding or running a red light, I
am fined and I pay the ticket. There is no physical evidence that I was
caught speeding other than the officer witnessing me do the crime. There is
no other evidence except for his word against mine, but I still have to pay
the price for the crime of breaking the law.
We have testimonies of healthcare workers and others breaking the law by not
following Idaho Code 39-4804. When they do not tell parents vaccines are
voluntary in this state and, even more, not telling parents what adverse
reactions can occur after their child receives a vaccine before vaccinating
them, then they should pay a fine.
Adding a penalty for violating our current law could bring in much needed
revenue for our state. Enforcing the law by fining those who violate it will
not only benefit the state but it will also help the parents of Idaho make
an informed decision regarding the choice of a medical procedure that is
fraught with risk and certainly not in the category of emergency medicine.
Both physicians and health departments will be compelled to obey the law
since no one wants to be penalized for breaking a just and fair law. And if
a child suffers an adverse reaction to a vaccine, the parents of the child
can at least say they were forewarned that this is the risk they took when
consenting to have their child vaccinated and the incident can get properly
reported. The national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) will
record the incident only if the physician or parent reports the adverse
reaction with the lot number of the vaccine and many other details.
Currently, vaccine injuries are very underreported, and I know this from
personal experience and witnessing doctors denying vaccine adverse events in
our own community. The VAERS database was set up by our federal government
in 1991 to accurately record vaccine injuries. Some vaccine lot numbers
receive a lot of reports of reactions such as paralysis and death while
other lots (batches of a particular vaccine) have very few reports. If
healthcare professionals are forced to tell their patients about the very
real and known risks of vaccines, then there patients will be able to detect
a vaccine reaction themselves. If a parent suspects a reaction, then they
can request the lot number from their physician and call VAERS to get it
properly recorded. By doing this, our government will be able to have the
data to justify the need for more careful monitoring of vaccines before
being licensed for use on the general public.
I was once a parent who believed in vaccines completely. I was never told of
the dangers of vaccines. From the beginning of my school years, I read in
books, was told by doctors, even watched in cartoons how important getting
shots were to be healthy and protect us from dangerous diseases. Never once
was I told there might be a possible negative side effect. As I grew up and
had my own children, I never thought twice whether or not to vaccinate my
children. There was never a discussion about the issue. Whenever I got the
reminder in the mail, "Its time for your child's shots!", I immediately
called and scheduled an appointment to have them vaccinated, believing it
was important to keep them healthy.
Today, my daughter is just a statistic for having a vaccine reaction. She is
DEAD because I was never told there was even a possibility of an adverse
reaction to her shots. Doctors only told me the "benefits" but never the
dangers. At the time I was on WIC (Women Infant Children). I took classes
every month I was pregnant and was shown how important it is to vaccinate my
child. They never told us about the dangers of vaccines either. I was also
on Medicaid. There was a time when my children were already vaccinated but I
had recently moved and misplaced my child's shot record. The Department of
Health and Welfare was ready to cut my child off from their benefits if I
didn't produce a shot record. I was never told of any exemptions to this
medical procedure, or told that there could be a possible adverse reaction
to a vaccine. As far as they were concerned, if I couldn't find the shot
record, then I had to revaccinate them.
I am not the only parent out there this has happened to. I work with
parents daily on the vaccine issue. I am the one who will go to the WIC and
Welfare offices, Doctor's appointment, schools and daycare, and argue with
them about Idaho law, informing them that parents do not have to vaccinate,
that there are reactions, and that there are exemptions. Just last week I
had a mom who called me and said she just had her 2-month-old in the doctors
office for his vaccinations. He was perfectly healthy before and now he is
really sick. She asked if it could be the vaccines and I told her, yes, it
is possible. I told her to get the package inserts from the doctor on which
shots her child had. I went with her to the doctor's appointment to get her
son checked out. When we brought up the issue of his high pitched crying and
sudden illness possibly being related to the vaccines he was given, Doctor
Wells threw a fit and completely changed his attitude. Instead of saying,
lets look into it, or, we could be overreacting, he started calling me
names. He was very upset, refused to give us the package insert and stormed
out of the room. I got the package inserts for the vaccines given to her son
from other sources, and it clearly states in the inserts from the vaccine
manufacturers that what was going on with her son could be a vaccine
Idaho Code Chapter 39 —; Section 4804 tells us we are to be told of the
dangers inherent in all vaccines, and that vaccines are voluntary in Idaho.
And yet I have evidence that this law is broken on a daily basis. This law
means nothing if it is not going to be enforced through a fine imposed on
those who willfully violate it. With our current budget crisis, the fine we
are suggesting will add much needed revenue for our state.
(Angie passes out a list of places denying employment, benefits etc.)
When registering your child for school, you are not told of exemptions to
required vaccines. One family in Benewah county is homeschooling their child
since they had a family history of allergies and did not want to risk an
adverse vaccine reaction. They wanted their child to attend public school
and were astounded when they found out over a year later that other kids
attended school without having vaccines.
WIC has been known to reschedule an appointment until the child's shot
record is forthcoming, denying the child the milk and nutrition he needs,
all because his parents are on a fixed income and rely on WIC.
WIC also requires parents to watch a video of sick children who are not
vaccinated or partially vaccinated, to frighten the mothers into getting
their child vaccinated. Parents are not shown what can happen if you
vaccinate your child and they have an adverse reaction. The issue of
possible vaccine reactions never is mentioned. Again, they are breaking the
People who enjoy working with food, taking care of the elderly or sick
patients, and make that their career in life are denied employment or
terminated from their jobs for refusing a hepatitis A or B shot.
If vaccine reactions are so rare and vaccinations are so wonderful, why is
the vaccine controversy such a sensitive topic? Why can't Idaho citizens
abide by the law and just tell parents what might happen should they
vaccinate their child? Why is this issue so covered-up? An adult or parent
must sign an agreement at the doctor's office before receiving vaccinations
so that the doctor or staff is not held liable should a vaccine injury
occur. You don't have to sign such a consent form for an antibiotic or a
routine medication that your doctor prescribes. Why the denial when a
vaccine injury does occur?
It is important that you understand what informed consent currently means in
this state. [Hand out copies of a typical "informed consent" form.] If you
go to a doctor's appointment as most parents do with the average 2-3
children in tow, this is what happens. You have the baby on your hip and two
kids running around. As you try to get the older kids settled down, the
receptionist tells you to sign this form before they give your child his
shots. And that's it!! You quickly sign it in order to get back to your
children. This is what they call "informed consent". After they vaccinate
your child, you are given several flyers telling you what a great parent you
are for having your child vaccinated, how the shots will protect him, and
then by reading further, you find out that there are side effects that can
happen and a few typical reactions are listed. But by then it is too late
for a truly informed choice. Plus these flyers are published from
information provided by the manufacturers of the vaccines, and not from any
independent researchers or studies. [Hand out samples of flyers given to
parents following vaccinations.]
This is just another example of why Idaho Code —; Chapter 39 —; Section 4804
needs to be clarified. As you can see, informed consent is not really
happening before a shot is administered in this state. The medical procedure
known as vaccination is not emergency medicine and carries the risk of
permanent disability or death. It is imperative that before parents submit
themselves or their children to such a procedure, they are told it is
voluntary in this state as well as the very real dangers involved. There
also needs to be a penalty for those who violate the law. Everyone who
requests vaccination records for school or daycare entry, or for government
programs such as WIC or Medicaid, needs to follow the law and tell their
clients that vaccines are voluntary in Idaho. Also, employers should not be
imposing a risky, unnecessary medical procedure on their employees as a
requirement for employment. As you can see, the changes we are proposing are
necessary and simply in keeping with the original intention of the
February 26, 2003
Request for Revisions to Idaho Code 39 —; 4804
I.C. 39 4804: NOTIFICATION TO PARENT, GUARDIAN OR ADULT VACCINE RECIPIENT.
Before an immunization is administered to an adult or child in this state,
the parent or guardian of the child or adult vaccine recipient shall be
1) Vaccinations are not mandatory and may be refused on medical, religious
or other grounds;
2) No person shall be denied employment for asserting their right to abstain
from any particular vaccine;
3) Participation in the immunization registry is voluntary; no child or
parent will be entered into the registry unless there is a signed statement
in writing authorizing the state to enter them into the registry;
4) The parent, guardian or adult vaccine recipient is entitled to an
accurate explanation of known adverse reactions that can occur as a result
of the vaccine. This information must come from both the manufacturer's
package insert and independent sources not funded by the state or
Those proven to be in violation of this section are subject to a $1000 fine.
The current wording of I.C. 39 - 4804 follows:
I.C. 39-4804 NOTIFICATION TO PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
Before an immunization is administered to any child in this state, the
parent or guardian of the child shall be notified that:
(1) Immunizations are not mandatory and may be refused on religious or other
(2) Participation in the immunization registry is voluntary;
(3) The parent or guardian is entitled to an accurate explanation of the
complications known to follow such immunization.
Feb. 26, 2003
Testimony of Ingri Cassel,
President of the Idaho Chapter of Vaccination
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the reasons it is
important to amend Idaho's current vaccination law to reflect its original
legislative intent. My name is Ingri Cassel. I am the president of the Idaho
Chapter of Vaccination Liberation. We are part of a national network
dedicated to providing information on vaccinations not often available to
the public so that one can make a truly informed choice. We founded our
chapter in November 1998. It was that summer that I realized how essential
it was to have a grassroots network of information in this state. I had
donated a book entitled Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth to the
Boundary County public library and the librarian refused to put it on the
shelf, despite the fact that there were no books on the shelf that were
either pro or con regarding vaccinations. Since we started our chapter, we
have heard countless stories of people being denied school entry, daycare
access, employment, and government programs for asserting their right to
abstain from a medical procedure that carries the risk of injury or death.
In fact, no vaccine has ever been proven to be 100% safe or 100% effective,
so, in essence, our state's immunization program is a form of state
sanctioned and enforced medical experimentation. Representative Ron Paul, an
M.D. from Texas, recently stated, "When we give government the power to make
medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our
Idaho's current immunization statutes allow for medical, religious and
personal conviction exemptions from recommended vaccinations. In 1999,
Idaho's Immunization Tracking Registry was introduced by then Senator Jack
Riggs as SB 1183. Although it was one of the most hotly contested bills that
year with dozens of parents of vaccine-damaged children testifying against
it, SB 1183 was signed into law in March 1999. To appease the concerns of
the parents testifying against what is now known as IRIS (Immunization
Reminder Information System), Representative Bill Sali added a second
amendment to SB 1183 which is now known as IC 39-4804 NOTIFICATION TO PARENT
OR GUARDIAN. It states:
Before an immunization is administered to any child in this state, the
parent or guardian of the child shall be notified that
(1) Immunizations are not mandatory and may be refused on religious or other
(2) Participation in the immunization registry is voluntary;
(3) The parent or guardian is entitled to an accurate explanation of the
complications known to follow such immunization.
This well-intended amendment to Idaho's statute makes it clear that
immunizations are completely voluntary in Idaho, yet most people are unaware
of this law. In fact, I know of two Idaho attorneys who have misinterpreted
this law to read that IC 39-4804 only applies to school children.
The other problem is there are no penalties for violating this law, as well
as no provisions for enforcing it. The Idaho Chapter of Vaccination
Liberation receives personal testimonies weekly from Idaho residents who
have been denied employment, are threatened to be terminated, have been
denied access to government programs, or have had their children refused at
a daycare or school for refusal to vaccinate.
Since many of you may not understand why anyone would want to refuse such a
beneficial medical procedure, and may even think that people abstain due to
ignorance or lack of access to medical services, I will attempt to cover
briefly the main reasons more and more educated and intelligent people have
decided that any perceived benefits do not outweight the known and unknown
risks involved in vaccination.
In a January 23, 2003 article in Spokane's weekly The Inlander —; "Focus on
Immunization", Ann Colford states that "
vaccination is a medical procedure
that involves some risk. There is also a risk in choosing not to vaccinate.
The diseases in question may be rare in this country, but most are still
common —; and deadly —; in other parts of the world, and an unvaccinated child
may become ill and spread disease. Parents must weigh the individual choice,
along with the public health risk to the community."
This is a common misnomer —; that unvaccinated children are reservoirs for
communicable diseases. Our schools even exclude unvaccinated children when
there is only one case of a disease that there is a vaccine for —; even if
the disease is contracted by a fully vaccinated child. One mom called me
last year who was furious for her child being excluded from school when this
was the case —; the child had a confirmed case of pertussis despite being
fully vaccinated, and yet the unvaccinated children were forced to stay
home. The assumption being that the unvaccinated children must have brought
the disease to the school and it just happened to be that a fully vaccinated
child contracted pertussis. How scientific is this?
A well-documented case in point is the 1997 pertussis outbreak in North
Idaho. I happen to have copies of the Panhandle Health District and CDC
reports covering this pertussis outbreak. Of the 253 cases reported in five
counties —; Shoshone, Benewah, Kootenai, Bonner and Boundary counties —; 81.5%
had 4 out of 4 of their DTP shots. According to Dr. Alan Banks who was on
the board of directors of the Panhandle Health District, in Bonner County
alone, 85% had 4 out of 4 of their DTP shots and 15% had 3 out of 4 of their
DTP shots. There were no reported cases among those who had 2 out of 4, 1
out of 4 OR zero DTP shots.
The CDC concluded that --Quote "The myth of vaccine refusal played no role
in this outbreak." Regardless, our local media continued to instill fear in
the public as to the necessity of getting the pertussis vaccine since there
were several deaths that resulted from the 1997 pertussis outbreak. When I
asked several pointed questions of the nurse in charge of the immunization
program for the Panhandle Health District, Jeanne Bock, regarding these
deaths, the truth of the matter was indeed shocking. Apparently there was
one death —; an infant girl of about 7 weeks. She was hospitalized in Post
Falls that winter and died in the hospital. When an autopsy was performed
they found some pertussis bacterium present in the infant's lungs. They then
decided to put pertussis as the cause of death on the death certificate.
Note that the infant died in a hospital and was never even treated for
pertussis. When I asked whether the infant was breastfed, malnourished,
premature or anything else regarding the health status of the infant in the
first place, I received a blank stare since Bock really didn't know and the
thought that there are factors besides the presence of pertussis bacteria
that could be a factor in this infant's death never even occurred to her.
By the way, after looking into many of these cases of deaths from "vaccine
preventable" diseases, I have found that these diseases are not deadly in
and of themselves. If they were, there would be a 100% fatality rate. What
people die of are the complications from inappropriate treatment or lack of
treatment coupled with malnutrition.
And regarding claims that smallpox and polio have been eradicated through
vaccination, these claims are false and can be explained quite easily--but
would require another presentation. If you want to look into this a bit
more, go to the smallpox and polio sections on our website www.vaclib.org
There is a wealth of credible, well-documented information there.
So how are vaccines tested for efficacy? All vaccines are licensed based on
their ability to produce antibodies to a particular antigen. However,
according to the CDC, antibody production for chickenpox, whooping cough,
smallpox and H. flu has never been proven in the field to equate to immunity
from the disease. In fact, people with incredibly high levels of tetanus
antibodies have been known to contract tetanus.
Regarding vaccine safety, the FDA safety guidelines are clearly inadequate.
The children involved in vaccine trials prior to licensing are only
followed for adverse reactions for 72 hours following the inoculation. An
article entitled "The Complicated Task of Monitoring Vaccine Safety"
appeared in the Public Health Reports of January/February 1997. This is a
publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors
were Drs. Susan Ellenberg and Robert Chen. Below is an excerpt from their
rather revealing synopsis:
Yet despite vaccines' clear effectiveness in reducing risks of diseases ...
vaccination policies are not without controversy. Vaccines, like all other
pharmaceutical products, are not entirely risk-free; while most known side
effects are minor and self-limited, some vaccines have been associated with
very rare but serious adverse effects. Because such rare effects are often
not evident until vaccines come into widespread use, the Federal government
maintains ongoing surveillance programs to monitor vaccine safety. The
interpretation of data from such programs is complex and associated with
substantial uncertainty. A continual effort to monitor these data
effectively and to develop more precise ways of assessing risks of vaccines
is necessary to ensure public confidence in immunization programs.
The writers admit that the clinical trials of vaccines are not sufficient to
identify and measure the risk levels associated with adverse events. In
effect, the vaccinated population itself becomes an experimental group. They
also admit that there is "substantial uncertainty" associated with
interpretation of data from surveillance programs.
Further, the writers do not see any need to assess the belief that vaccines
are effective and good for public health. They accept this view as a
postulate. They see the questioning of vaccination programs by some members
of the public as a problem, and the only challenge for them is to defeat the
For those who remain skeptical, consideration of problems of vaccine safety
should take place with the common statistical concept of the bell curve as
applied to vaccine adverse reactions. (See handout).
We are currently experiencing an epidemic of behavioral problems in our
children. The gradual increase in reported cases of autism and ADHD very
clearly coincides with the number of CDC recommended vaccines our children
receive. This is documented in several books --(show books.) In fact, in
Harris Coulter's extremely well-footnoted and referenced book Vaccination,
Social Violence and Criminality —; The Medical Assault on the American Brain,
he cites how vaccinations are known to cause encephalitis or swelling of the
brain in every vaccine recipient, just in varying degrees. Researchers have
noted that when a baby is premature or immune compromised (usually from
malnutrition), the encephalitic reaction from vaccines is even more
pronounced. Christy Schutz who will be testifying after Angie Vasquez, will
share with you some of the court cases in this area of our state involving
young men accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome. In her own son's case, the public
defender refused to allow their expert witness, Dr. Harold Buttram from
Pennsylvania, testify on his behalf.
Idaho is currently experiencing a budget crisis. Although I do not have the
figures for Idaho's current expenditures on enforcing immunization
requirements for school entry, I am confident that the figures are
comparable to the ones I have for Minnesota. (handout —; American Journal of
Public Health, December 2002;92(12):1982-7).
It appears that we need to re-examine Idaho's Immunization Program and the
high cost in both federal and state tax dollars in funding this program. But
first it is important to preserve our most fundamental of human rights, the
right to decide what will or will NOT be injected into our bodies. The
changes we are proposing are simply further clarification of the original
intent of I.C. 39-4904.
For those of you who have a hard time believing that vaccines are not the
public health panacea we have been led to believe, I would like you to read
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's short article entitled "The Belief in Vaccines". We
were hoping to close our testimonies with a couple videotape excerpts from
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's two-hour presentation, Vaccination: What CDC Documents
and Science Reveal. Instead, a copy for you to "check out" and view is with
your committee secretary.
Next I'd like to introduce Angie Vasquez, director of the South Idaho
Chapter of Vaccination Information And Liberation in Burley, Idaho. She has
accumulated documentation of numerous violations of current Idaho state law
in her area and is adamant about the need to clarify and amend I.C. 39-4804.
She first became aware of the dangers of vaccines when her infant daughter
died from the very disease the Hib vaccine was supposed to prevent. After 3
œ years, she received compensation from the national Vaccine Injury
Compensation program for her daughter's premature death. Angie is now among
the 25% of parents who apply for this program and actually receive
compensation for a vaccine injured child. To date, $1.4 billion has been
paid out through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). The VICP
guidelines state that $250,000 is the ceiling put on compensation for a
child that has died from a vaccine reaction. Angie was only given half that
amount since one must sign a "gag order" in order to receive the full award.
I want to personally thank Angie for not signing this paper since, if she
did, she would not be here today to give you her testimony. ---Angie
Vaccination Liberation's Testimony on the Need for
Proposed Changes to Idaho Code 39-4804
List of Written Testimonies, Handouts, and Reference Materials filed with
House and Senate Health and Welfare Committee Secretaries.
1. Ingri Cassel's Written Testimony
a. Request for Revisions to Idaho Code 39 —; 4804.
b. What's Under the Hump on the Bell Curve? U.S. Public Health Service
admits "substantial uncertainty" exists regarding vaccine safety. By
Michael P. Wright.
c. Current trends in childhood vaccine costs and estimated future costs --
the American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 2002;92(12):1982-7. Also,
Testimony by Jerri Johnson before Minnesota's Health and Human Services
Jan. 27, 2003.
d. "The Belief in Vaccines" by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
e. The Pharmaceutical Industry has created "The Perfect Business".
f. Smallpox Alert! —; 8 page special edition newspaper
2. Angie Vasquez's Written Testimony
a. List of places denying employment, benefits or services.
b. Sample informed consent form.
c. Sampling of flyers handed out to parents.
3. Christy Schutz's Written Testimony
Articles on file with the secretaries of the Senate and House Health and
1. Vaccination Liberation's Basic Membership Packet www.vaclib.org
(Contents Attached, [last page]).
2. Vaccination: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal —; a two-hour
presentation by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny on videotape, Nov. 2002.
3. "What Is Coming Through That Needle? The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine
Contamination" by Benjamin McRearden.
4. "Idaho Pertussis Case Study" —; the CDC's analysis of the 1997 pertussis
outbreak in the Panhandle Health District of Idaho.
5. "Pertussis - North Idaho Outbreak 1997 —; An Epidemiological Report" by
Randi Russo, M.Ed., RN and Marie Rau, M.Ed., RN.
6. "Disseminated Vasculomyelinopathy: An Immune Complex Disease" by Louis
Reik, Jr., MD
Annals of Neurology, Vol. 7, No. 4, April 1980.
7. "Shaken Baby Syndrome: fundamental questions" by Ronald H. Uscinski,
British Journal of
Neurosurgery 2002; 16(3): 217-219.
8. Shaken Baby/Impact Syndrome: Flawed Concepts and Misdiagnoses (Based on
a Review of Twenty-Eight Cases) by Harold E Buttram, February 5, 2003
The Belief in Vaccines
I always find it interesting when a discussion over the topic of vaccination
becomes "heated" and "volatile". Why is that?....Would the same debate rage
over an antibiotic or an anti-hypertensive medicine if there was evidence
that it was causing harm?
Highly doubtful. It would be removed promptly from the market if deaths
resulted from its use. Even if deaths were suspected to be caused by a
medication, we would stop using it until it was proven to be safe.
Not so with a vaccine. We keep using it until we can "prove" it is causing
Why the double standard?
The doublespeak occurs because vaccination is built around a "belief"
system, and challenging the validity of vaccines challenges long-held
foundational beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe; we BELIEVE that
vaccines are important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines will protect
us from infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reason infectious
diseases decreased around the world. And we really want to BELIEVE that our
doctor has read all the available information on vaccines--pro and con--and
that s/he is telling us the complete truth about vaccines...
However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact.
With only a cursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will
find the following facts:
1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studies
small and only include "healthy" children. However, after a study is
completed, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlying
health conditions or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all"
national vaccination policy; one that does not allow for personal choice or
individualized options; and one that has caused a myriad of health problems
2. Observations for side effects continue for a maximum of 14-days during a
"safety study". Complex problems involving the immune system can take weeks
or even months to appear. This arbitrary 14-day cut off set by the FDA and
the pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complications
are likely to appear. This is the basis for the "vaccines are safe" mantra
but the long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccines are
3. A vaccine "safety" study is designed to compare a new vaccine to a
"placebo." However, when we examine the study a little more closely, we
discover that the "placebo" is NOT a benign, inert substance, such as saline
or water. The "placebo" is another vaccine with a "known safety profile." So
if the new vaccine has the same side effects as the "placebo", the new
vaccine is considered to be "safe."
4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development of
antibodies. However, there are many references in CDC documents (the Highest
Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which reveal that antibodies don't
necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a few examples from medical
journals and CDC documents:
Pertussis: "The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a
direct correlation between antibody response and protection against
pertussis disease." MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, p.4
H. Flu (HiB): "The antibody contribution to clinical protection is
---HibTITER package insert
"The precise level of antibody required for protection against HiB
invasive disease is not clearly established."
Smallpox: "Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of
protection, although this has not been validated in the field." JAMA June 9,
1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132
5. We want to "believe" that a vaccine will protect us from infection.
Several medical journal articles document that this is not necessarily so.
Here are a few examples:
Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers,
(Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5; Sep-Oct 2000)
Pertussis in the Highly Vaccinated Population, The Netherlands
(Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 4 July-Aug 2000)
Pertussis in North-West Western Australia in 1999; all vaccinated.
(Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2000 Vol 2 4 No 12)
The debate surrounding the use of vaccines goes back and forth with "data"
and "studies" used to support both sides. But the bottom line is this:
Vaccination has been "accepted" as safe, effective and protective for nearly
200 years. It is a "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", people react
with a visceral response when someone suggests that the time has come for
the "cow" be "sacrificed". There are many examples of this over the
centuries: Copernicus who insisted that the Sun is the Center of the solar
system and Semmelweiss who showed that doctors performing hand washing saved
women's lives. Both men were ridiculed in their day. It is heresy to suggest
that the "status quo" is wrong.
Statistics have shown that when presented with a new, different, challenging
idea, 96% of people will spend their time and energy defending their current
beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as something to seriously
Researching vaccinations and the vaccine industry will seriously challenge
your "beliefs" in vaccines. When you begin to study the negative
effects--both actual and theoretical--that vaccines have on the immune
system, you will likely become part of the 4% who understand that "the
truth" about vaccines is not really "Their Truth," and that the
one-size-fits-all vaccination policies currently being enforced must be
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
New Medical Awareness Seminars
2. For Sale - Books, Video and Audiotapes
3. Our Lending Library - Books, Newsletters and Article Reprints
4. Basic Facts to Know About Vaccinations
5. Facts About Hepatitis B —; The Disease and the Vaccine
6. Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) —; The Diseases and the Vaccine
7. Facts About Influenza —; The Disease and the Vaccine
8. Smallpox Flyers —; Full page + œ page
9. "Investigate Before You Vaccinate" Flyer
10. Vaccination Exemption Form that can be used in Idaho
11. Outline for our series of monthly support group meetings OR 4 hour
12. Vaccination Liberation tri-fold
13. Vaccination: Dispelling the Myths by, Alan Phillips
14. Vaccines: New Plague for a New Era by, Karen Maidra
15. Vaccination, Inc. - Parts 1 & 2 by, Paul Borraccia
16. Antibody Theory http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
17. How Do The Vaccines Work? by, Richard Moskowitz, M.D.
18. Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link by, Viera Scheibner
19. Getting Off The Disease Scary-Go-Round by, Walene James
20. Why the Compulsory Vaccination Laws Must Be Repealed by, Walene James
21. bumper sticker - "Question Vaccination"
P.O. Box 1444, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 · (208) 255-2307 · www.vaclib.org
My Testimony Before Idaho's House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees
February 26, 2003.
Boise, Idaho 83705
My name is Christy Shutz. I am testifying on behalf of my son Michael Shutz as well as Joshua King, Ricky
McCusker, and all others who have been falsely accused and convicted of violent child abuse, with the most
common offense defined as Shaken Baby Syndrome. Having attended court proceedings of the three above
named, I am personally familiar with the details.The discovery of these cases hold compelling evidence
supporting the innocence of each.Yet all three are imprisoned with sentences ranging from four years fixed,
with six years indeterminate, fifteen years fixed, with life indeterminate, and three years fixed, with six years
indeterminate,( the consolation for taking the plea bargain), respectively. This is unconscionable injustice, and
must be viewed as such by all who become aware!
The inconsiderations of the accused begin in the hospitals, where it has become obvious that the allegation of
child abuse is taking precedence and substitution of screening tests to determine the possibility of a chronic
condition or other malady.
Such as the child my son was accused of harming. One doctor, of the many attending, discovered the child had
Hydrocephalus that had gone undiagnosed despite (recorded) accelerated head growth that had been taking place
since birth. (A chronic condition, with suspicions of the Hep.B vaccination the child received within a day of
birth having caused). However, regardless of the cause, the diagnosis remained as Shaken Baby Syndrome, and
the significance of the Hydrocephalus was negated at trial, as was a massive recurrent hemorrhage following the
four month immunizations of the child.
There are tactics used by Health and Welfare workers and others threatening the mothers of the alleged victims
with loss of custody to the State if they don't cooperate with the implication of their boyfriend or husband as the
perpetrator. Subtle hints of this were brought out during testimony at my son's trial, as well as references in the
During the sentencing of Ricky McCusker, when Judge Carrey asked if any of the victim's family members
wished to speak, I watched prosecutor Shelley Armstrong look directly at Stephanie Flippin, the alleged victim's
mother, and shake her head no. Afterwards, I approached the young mother and asked her if I saw what I believed
I had. Stephanie confirmed my belief with the explanation that she felt Ricky to be innocent of the charges
against him, however had been advised to keep those particular feelings to herself.
Michael DeAngelo of the public defender's office was Ricky's counsel, (and the original counsel of my son).
Minutes prior to sentencing, Mr. DeAngelo handed Selina Carter, Ricky's mother, the discovery of his case.That
was the first time the family was allowed to view it.
The child in Ricky's case suffered a major reaction to four different serums of vaccines nine hours after the
As my son's counsel, Mr.DeAngelo told us that vaccine injury, if it is to occur, must happen within twenty four
to forty eight hours of injection. Apparently his theory did not apply in Ricky's case. He gave Ricky the same
warning as Michael, that if he didn't take the plea bargain and was found guilty at trial, it would anger the judge
and he would receive the maximum sentence.
When asked that he acquire the immunization records for expert witnesses, Mr. DeAngelo suggested Health and
Welfare might be reluctant to release the records for fear of losing Federal funding.When my son informed Mr.
DeAngelo of our knowledge of the position he once held at Health and Welfare, he was promptly conflicted off
The trial of my son was at the total discretion and censorship of prosecutors Jean Fisher and Shelley Armstrong.
This resulted in the prohibition of certain evidence and testimonies with strong support of my son's innocence.
There was a vicious attack on our expert medical witness, Dr. Leestma, distracting the jurors from what little
testimony he was allowed to give. The conduct of the prosecutors was as such to remove all truth, dignity, and
honor from the courtroom.
Then the decision by John DeFranco, (Michael's conflict public defender), to disallow the testimony of Harold
Buttram MD, reasoning risk of confusing the jury with information on vaccine injury.
Mr. DeFranco blatantly protected his alliance with the prosecution at complete expense to his client, making the
guilty verdict of this case inevitable.
At Michael's sentencing, Judge McLaughlin seemed to have the need to dishonor his own position by declaring
his agreement with the verdict had he been on the jury. Apparently he was oblivious to the fact that most anyone
would, given the inequity of the trial.
Joshua King, of Canyon County passed a lie detector test (with very high scores), vindicating him of the death of
a child in his care. While I realize the tests are inadmissible in court, I would then question, why are they
considered a reliable tool in the monitoring of sex offenders and other probation and parole situations? What an
incredible double standard!
I do not discount that child abuse exists. I don't know anyone who does. However, there are highly credentialed,
experienced experts who believe the Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis to be seriously flawed. And that innocent
people are being accused and convicted is a criminal act in itself.
If we do not make a move in an honest and positive direction, we are failing the very innocents we claim to