AMA Proposes Forcing People to Participate In Vaccine Trials

You read that right.  The American Medical Association has published a piece in the Policy Forum entitled:

Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials be Mandated?

I am absolutely apoplectic.

The article, written by Suzanne Sheehy and Joel Meyer begins its argument for forced participation in vaccine trials with a quote from Highly Esteemed and Eminent Physician Ethically Challenged College Dropout Bill Gates.  Because he is truly who you should be going to for medical advice.  Cause... you know... he's rich.

Few would argue with Bill Gates when he describes vaccination as “the most effective and cost effective health tool ever invented”

So on the basis of this non doctor's, non-medical opinion (we do know that he owns a vaccine company, right), with no proof of the validity of this statement necessary mind you (because after all, "few would argue with him" and consensus equals truth) we are not only now going to vaccinate everyone, we are going to force people into vaccine trials.

And the medical establishment is completely baffled why people don't trust them any more and won't take their vaccine advice?

If I just stopped here, the fact that they just published this suggestion, should be enough to perhaps get mainstream med to ask themselves whether or not they really have jumped the shark on vaccine policy.  But then again, that should have happened a long time ago.  But apparently not yet.  Let's go on to the arguments they make including the ideas that:

• "Given the often unquantifiable risks to the recipients of vaccines in early stages of development" clinical trials rely on volunteers, which is unsustainable and unethical. 
• Volunteerism in vaccine trials is on the decline.
• It doesn't pay well enough which tells participants that they are undervalued.
• Most participants are "poor and vulnerable" which is unethical since the approved vaccines "benefit the whole population."
• If we pay them more, then they will be seduced by the money and might not be practicing "informed consent"
• Progress on new vaccines must be uneffected by people not wanting to be in vaccine trial, therefore they should consider new strategies
• Forcing people to be involved is one such strategy, and it "is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration"
• Many societies already mandate things that are for The Greater Good, like jury duty, opt-out organ donation and the draft.

And I just want to give you this whole quote, so you really see clearly that when we say that our children have been drafted into their war on communicable disease, it is not really an analogy as much as it is... well... fact:

"In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society."

[emphasis mine]

In his chapter in our book, Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, Allen Tate makes the point that if one is going to make a greater good argument (that one unsavory thing must be undertaken to get something more important for more people) one must first ACTUALLY PROVE THAT SUCH A THING WILL BRING ABOUT A GREATER GOOD.   He then evaluates the greater good argument made for the current vaccine program (which does not include forced vaccine trial participation) and finds that it does not even meet the standard of a "greater good".

But no problem with that here for Sheehy and Meyer, because as they point out, it is vaccine maker Bill Gates' opinion (who is very rich btw), and few would argue with him... so... it must be the best thing for everyone.

It is at this point that I have to offer Leslie Manookin high praise for so aptly naming her vaccine documentary, "The Greater Good".  Let's pause here for a moment to see what this "greater good" program is doing to the vulnerable in our society:

And that is from APPROVED vaccines.

They truly see us and our children as functionaries in their system.  Medicine does not exist to make you, the individual, better; You, the individual, exist to make Medicine better.  You are theirs to "conscript".  They can draft you into their service as an actual "lab rat."  (And no that is not an exaggeration as the third sentence in this article reads, "The lack of animal models that can reliably predict vaccine efficacy means that development still unavoidably relies on testing of novel vaccines in healthy individuals.")

See?  Not about your and your rights and your health.  Your rights are not even factored into their arguements.  Check this:

"As ever, then, the debate boils down to a consideration of the “greater good” or the “lesser evil.” A key consideration is the risk benefit ratio—risk to the individual volunteer balanced against the benefit to society. "

"As ever..." as in the only thing they are taking into account.  The deciding factor.

Then the article truly falls into Orwellian doublespeak.  They authors acknowledge that forcing people to participate in vaccine trials, will violate respect for peoples rights, violate the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, and destroy trust in the vaccine program.  Their solution?

"A more palatable and realistic option is a policy of “mandated choice.” In this case individuals would be required by law to state in advance their willingness to participate in vaccine trials [15]. The advantage of this system is that it could identify a large cohort of willing volunteers from which participants could be recruited rapidly without jeopardizing individual autonomy. It would encourage an open, noncoercive philosophy for tackling societal challenges without compromising individual freedom or public trust in the health care system."

Mandated choice?  MANDATED CHOICE?!!

UP IS DOWN!
BLACK IS WHITE!
WAR IS PEACE!
VIOLENCE IS LOVE!
MANDATE IS CHOICE!!!!!

So the law REQUIRING YOU to say you will participate before hand, then holding you to it later, is choice!  It is not coercive, does not violate your right to informed consent, and will not destroy trust in the vaccine program or in medicine or government in general!

Welcome to 1984!!  The law will require you to commit you to volunteer your body to science!  The law does not even do that now for DEAD PEOPLE!

And to skip back a bit, follow this logic... paying people lots of money to participate in trials sabatoges "informed consent", but legally forcing them to consent, is "informed consent."  Coercing with money = immoral.  Coercing with a gun = moral!

Then we get to the kernel of the issue.  That people just don't value vaccines enough, so the law must now force them to be valued.  And no such article should go with out a shot at Wakefield and our community:

"But perhaps most importantly, as a society we need to evaluate our perception of vaccination. Any successful vaccine program by its very nature takes a once-feared illness out of the public eye. This means that the benefits of immunization become forgotten while side effects in small numbers of individuals fill the headlines. It is all too easy for sensationalist and unfounded stories such as that claiming a link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism [16] to instead take root in society’s collective psyche. Ultimately such a crucial public health intervention as vaccine development may become devalued—and only revalued once a drop in vaccination rates leads to resurgence of severe disease."

"But perhaps more importantly..."  Because more important than honoring the human rights of actual humans, is a valuable perception of vaccination.

Seriously... these people can go to hell.  Or just visit Auschwitz, where medical progress was much more important than allowing people to say to NO to forced experimentation.

So to the publishers of this article:

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEET THE FREE MARKET!

Your product line called "vaccine" is not as valuable as you think it is.  (In business this is called a "bubble".)  People are buying less of it.  You have reached a saturation point.  Time to wake up and smell the informed consent.  The public has been informed... AND THEY DON'T CONSENT!

You will put experimental vaccines into the bodies of my family over my dead body.  


And to Sheehy and Meyer:

I cannot find words that will express my outrage and contempt for what you have done here.  This is absolutely an abomination to the whole point of medicine, and to logic itself.  I hope that you are despised in your communities for floating a balloon like this.  It is nothing short of evil.

I do take solace in the fact that the logic in this article is such utter bullshit (MANDATED CHOICE... I still can't believe you wrote this with a straight face) that anyone with half a brain will see that you are attempting to bring back the good old days of Doctor Mengele and will flush this article down the toilet where it belongs.

So if this was some sort of ironic "A Modest Proposal" type article to point out that we have gone a bit overboard on the vaccine push, then now is the time to speak up on that.

If not... as I proposed earlier, which might not be as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration... go to hell.

SCOTUS Rules: If You Are Injured By A Vaccine, You Are On Your Own

The world has just changed.

The Supreme Court has just ruled that if you are injured by a vaccine, you have no right to sue anyone for it.

The only right you do have is the right to ASK the government to pay you for it.

And if they don't want to, you have no recourse and there is NO consequence for the government.

And the government rejects the vast majority of vaccine injury cases that people file.

There will be reams written about this to come, but for the moment, you need to understand that your government has removed your basic civil right to go to court if you are hurt or your child is killed by one class of medical products.

I cannot imagine that there will be any other reaction to this than parents everywhere declining vaccination on a wider and wider scale as they come to realize that this means, choosing instead to chance treatable viral illness over a life of poverty following a debilating vaccine injury.  When England removed the separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines from the market, and their choice was MMR or nothing, mom's choose nothing.  

Which will mean that the next step for the vaccine pushers, and truly no one can deny that they are pushers at this point, will be to travel down the course that Offit has been telegraphing since last year and begin to use coercive measures on the public to FORCE vaccination.  We know that CPS has already used child removal, that schools have illegally denied entry and that even judges have ordered parents to vaccinate in complete violation of their own state laws.  So where is the Doctocracy going to take us from here?  

And when will we collectively, as a nation, yell STOP!

Because until we do... you have to understand...

YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.

From the Coalition for Vaccine Safety:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                     Contact: Robert Krakow, Esq.
                                                                                                   (917) 763-0063
                                                                                                   rkrakow@krakowlawfirm.com                    
February 22, 2011                                                                    Mary Holland, Esq. (212) 998-6212
                                                                                                   (917) 743-3868
                                                                                                   coalitionforvaccinesafety@gmail.com   
                                                 
Court Protects Vaccine Manufacturers, Not Injured Children

Supreme Court Decides Bruesewitz v. Wyeth 6-2, Foreclosing Civil Lawsuits for Vaccine Design Defect 

New York, NY – The Coalition for Vaccine Safety (CVS) condemns the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth to preempt all vaccine design defect lawsuits in state and federal civil court.  Quoting Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the majority “imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress.”  In the dissent, which Justice Ginsburg joined, Justice Sotomayor argues that the majority misreads the text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and “disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market.”

The actual circumstances in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth illustrate why the Supreme Court’s decision is misguided.  Hannah Bruesewitz, hours after a diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine, developed catastrophic brain injury and a lifelong seizure disorder.  The only plausible explanation for the harm to Hannah was her vaccine.  Indeed, many other children were injured by the same vaccine lot, yet the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the only court where Hannah could bring her claim, denied compensation after years of litigation.  Now the Supreme Court tells Hannah and her family that there is no courtroom in the country in which she can obtain justice and compensation for the years of care ahead that she needs.

The majority’s true intent appears to be to prevent several thousand tort cases claiming a link between vaccines and autism from reaching civil court to assert that a dangerous vaccine design, using mercury as a preservative, was defective.  Sotomayor writes that this concern, to shield manufacturers from litigation, “appears to underlie the majority and concurring opinions in this case.”

According to vaccine safety advocate Louise Kuo Habakus, “The Court is telling parents that they’re on their own.  Parents know that 4 out of 5 cases of vaccine injury do not get compensation in the misnamed Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  The Supreme Court has slammed the courthouse doors shut.”  Because the federal government recommends 70 doses of 16 “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, and states compel 30-45 doses for school attendance, this issue affects all children.

CVS calls for Congressional hearings and action to amend the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to reinstate the right to sue for vaccine design defect in civil court.

For more information on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and vaccine safety, visit www.coalitionforvaccinesafety.org.

Organizations supporting the Coalition for Vaccine Safety:

Age of Autism (www.ageofautism.com)
Autism One (www.autismone.com)
Autism Action Network (www.autismactioncoalition.org)
Center for Personal Rights (www.centerforpersonalrights.org)
The Coalition for Safe Minds (www.safeminds.org)
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy (www.ebcala.org)
Generation Rescue (www.generationrescue.org)
National Autism Association (www.nationalautismassociation.org)
National Autism Association New York Metro Chapter (www.naanyc.org)
Talk About Curing Autism (www.talkaboutcuringautism.org)
Unlocking Autism (www.unlockingautism.org)  

National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma

February 23, 2011 08:03 AM Eastern Time 

WASHINGTON--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), whose co-founders worked with Congress on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL-99-660), is calling yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision giving drug companies total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by government mandated vaccines a “betrayal” of the American consumer.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has removed all financial incentive for multi-national pharmaceutical corporations, which enjoy a $20 billion dollar business, to make vaccines as safe as they can be”

In a 6-2 decision, the Court majority voted to reject substantial evidence in the Act’s legislative history that the 99^th Congress fully intended to protect an American’s right to sue a pharmaceutical corporation for injuries that could have been prevented if the company had elected to make a safer vaccine.

NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher, said “Parents of vaccine injured children, who worked in good faith with Congress in the early 1980’s on the 1986 law, have been betrayed by six American judges, who ignored congressional intent and threw victims of vaccine injury under the bus in order to give complete liability protection to a wealthy industry with a long history of hiding their products’ risks. They have removed the safety net we were promised. If we had known this day would come, we would have vigorously opposed any federal legislation that limited civil liability for drug corporations now making substantial profits from vaccines mandated by government.”

Hannah Bruesewitz was brain injured by DPT vaccine as a child but she was denied compensation by the U.S. Court of Claims, which administers the federal vaccine injury compensation program created by the 1986 Act that has turned away two out of three plaintiffs. Her attorneys then sued in civil court, providing evidence that Wyeth-Lederle had the technology to produce a less reactive, purified pertussis vaccine but declined to do so.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has removed all financial incentive for multi-national pharmaceutical corporations, which enjoy a $20 billion dollar business, to make vaccines as safe as they can be,” said Fisher. “This is a sad day for all Americans forced by law to use dozens of doses of vaccines or be barred from school or health insurance or employment. The only leverage left to American consumers to ensure that vaccines with the fewest health risks are produced is to oppose vaccine mandates and work to defendvaccine exemptions in all public health laws.”

The National Vaccine Information Center is a non-profit charity founded in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. NVIC co-founders were responsible for inclusion of vaccine safety and research provisions in the 1986 Act, including theVaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, and for ensuring that the Act protected the right of those injured by vaccines to access the civil court system if they were turned down for compensation or offered too little to meet their lifetime medical care needs.

NVIC has been critical of the failure of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to implement the 1986 law in accordance with legislative language, history and congressional intent. For more information, go to www.NVIC.org

Contacts

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
Barbara Loe Fisher
President – Co-Founder
703-938-0342
www.NVIC.org

CDC Looks to Force Vaccines on a National Scale

Today Thomas R. Frieden, head of CDC appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to testify on H1N1 and in a response to a question from Congressman Darrell Issa, said that the CDC would like to create federal mandates forcing vaccines on the public.

Issa asked about the "push back" from the New York medical professionals to the states mandate that they receive the H1N1 and seasonal flu shot and the case that the state has for forcing the vaccines. Frieden expressed the opinion that he believed that the state mandate is warranted, and that he thinks such mandates should take place at a federal level, although not this year.

This echos Julie Gerberding's comments to the New York Times last week in regard to the NY manndate that CDC wanted to implement forced vaccines while she was there.

"The unions do not oppose vaccination “but we oppose a mandatory program,” he said. “This is: ‘You don’t get the shot, you’re fired.’ ”

Some prominent health experts, however, were delighted.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called New York’s move “a big deal.”

She had pushed for years for mandatory vaccinations — not just to protect health care workers, she explained, but to protect their patients, who are often aged, have weakened immune systems or are bedridden after surgery, which increases pneumonia risks.

“We tried to market the idea, to push people, to educate,” she said. “But looking back, broadly speaking, we failed. It’s time to look at a more aggressive approach.”

By contrast, her successor, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, said last month that even though he expected a surge in swine flu deaths this winter and even though C.D.C. guidelines give health care workers first priority for the new vaccine, he would not push to make vaccinations mandatory."

Apparently the NYT was only partially right that Frieden wouldn't push for forced vaccinations. He wants to force them, just not this year.

Video can be found here, Issa/Frieden discussion starts at 43:20.

UPDATE: Listening to Frieden again, I can't tell if he is talking about mandating vaccines for health care workers or for the general public. Not that either are acceptable. But I don't think that a mandate for health professionals would be anything but a precedent for mass forced vaccination.