Vaccination Liberation - Information
Legal: Science: Misc: Searches:

Package Inserts
Ingredients of Vaccines
Artificially Sweetened Times
Books Videos Tapes
100+ Anti-Vax links
Breaking News
Smallpox Alert!

Archived Page

Testimony before Idaho Legislature

Feb. 26, 2003

Testimony of Angie Vasquez,
director of the South Idaho Chapter of Vaccination Information and Liberation.
Burley, Idaho

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 reaction.

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 law.

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 law.

February 26, 2003

Request for Revisions to Idaho Code 39 —; 4804

Proposed Changes:


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 notified that

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 pharmaceutical industry.

Those proven to be in violation of this section are subject to a $1000 fine.

The current wording of I.C. 39 - 4804 follows:


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 grounds;

(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 Liberation,
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 body."

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 grounds;

(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 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 skepticism.

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 -- excerpted from the American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 2002;92(12):1982-7. Also, Testimony by Jerri Johnson before Minnesota's Health and Human Services Policy Committee,

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

a. Handouts

Articles on file with the secretaries of the Senate and House Health and Welfare Committees

1. Vaccination Liberation's Basic Membership Packet
(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 harm.

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 are 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 for many.

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 unknown.

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 unknown."

---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, Israel
(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 consider.

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 changed.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

New Medical Awareness Seminars

© 2002


1. New Member Letter

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

(Please visit our website for additional exemption information.)

11. Outline for our series of monthly support group meetings OR 4 hour workshop

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

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

Christy Shutz

4404 Camas

Boise, Idaho 83705

February 26, 2003.
My Testimony Before Idaho's House and Senate Health and Welfare Committees

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 discovery.

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 injections.

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 case.

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 protect.


Christy Shutz

Dr. Buttram's summary of 28 SBS cases...