I am writing to you to express my uttermost outrage at the effrontery of the State of New Jersey to impede on not only the civil rights and liberties of the residents of this state, but to eradicate the inalienable rights of every parent of this state to decide what the proper course of medical treatment is for their child. To impose a law requiring that all children receive vaccinations that are not currently being given, is nothing more than an attempt by this State to erect communism, “a political ideology advocating a classless society, the abolition of private ownership and all sources of wealth and production being collectively owned and controlled by the people.”
See:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:9HwL7nL8hYEJ:www.allwords.com/word-communism.html+communism+definition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

Additionally, this country is not a dictatorship and therefore, the State of New Jersey lacks the jurisdiction to mandate that a parent inject their child with elements of known risk. Furthermore, the proposed law is in complete violation of the rights of New Jersey State Citizens to exercise their right to consent in accordance with the HIPAA laws of this state.

The following are the relevant portions of an article post at this website: http://www.kennedyhealth.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=6EFD7FDB16794B169B32511992E9DBED&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=71169F855F74F34B987E6807E338E63

This list is an abbreviated summary of the current New Jersey law and regulations governing the rights of hopsital patients. For comlete information, consult NJ Department of Health regulations at N.J.A.C.8:43G-4.1...

Medical Care

...

- The right to receive an understandable explanation from your physician of your complete medical condition, recommended treatment, expected results, risks involved, and reasonable medical alternatives. If your physician believes that some of this information would be detrimental to your health or beyond your ability to understand, the explanation must be given to your next of kin or ghuardian, unless prohibited in accordance with federal law.

- The right to give informed, written consent prior to the start of specified, non-emergency medical procedures or treatments. Your physician should explain to you-in words you understand-specific details abut the recommended procedure or treatment, expected results, any risks involved, time required for reconvery, and any reasonable medical alternatives.

- If the patient is incapable of giving informed, written consent, consent shall be sought from the patient's next of kin or guardian or through an advance directive, to the extent authorized by law. If the patient does not give written consent, a physician shall enter an explanation in the patient's medical record.

- The patient or his or her representative has the right to make informed decisions regarding his or her care, be informed of his or her health status, and be involved in care planning and treatment.

....

- The right to refuse medication and treatment to the extent permitted by law and to be informed of the medical consquences of this act.

- The right to be included in experiemental research only if you give informed, written consent. You ahve the right to refuse to participate.

- The right to receive pain relief. The right to an approrpiate assessment and management of your pain. You have a right to be educated about pain, pain relief measures, and to be included in setting goals for relieving identified pain.
....

Communication and Information

....

- The right to be informed of the names and functions of all physicians and other healthcare professionals providing you with personal care.

- The right to know the relationship(s) of the hospital to other persons or organizations participating in the provision of his/her care.

- The right to be informed of the names and functions of any outside healthcare and educational institutions involved in your treatment. You may refuse to allow their participation.

....

- The right to be informed about the outcomes of care, treatment, and services, including unanticipated outcomes.
....

Personal Needs

- The right to be treated with courtesy, consideration, and respect for your dignity and individuality.

If the State of New Jersey intends on passing such a ludicrous law, then the State acknowledges full and complete responsibility for any cause of detriment to its residents due to such frivolousness. Furthermore, if such an erroneous law is passed, then a Bill should be passed that the state government:

1. Absorb the cost of any and all such mandated injections;

2. Absorb the costs of any and all civil suits arising out of any and all detriment to the residents thereof; and

3. Provide each and every resident of the state a written declaration as to its intentions to do so.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is an absolute irony that the State has interjected that “Under state law…religious exemptions [may] be granted.” [Emphasis added]. See the Middlesex County Edition of The Star Ledger dated December 11, 2007, Article: State to require annual flu shots for all students. Such an interpolation merely exploits the State’s supportive efforts over the immigrant population, as it is that populous majority that asserts the stance upon religion and ultimately infects the citizens.

No such exemption, should therefore, be permitted under the current proposal in an effort to initiate communistic equality for all under the already ordained impediment of the state government’s need for control. It is well documented fact that the immigrants coming into this state from other countries are not properly vaccinated and rely heavily upon their religious beliefs for not doing so. Therefore, the onus of state’s doughty in this respect, must properly establish this law geared toward the proper population.

Moreover, the enactors of this law have not done the necessary thorough research regarding the potential harms of the new vaccines they are imposing, or if they have, that are merely acting through the diligence of political nonsense and for the sake of name recognition only.

For instance, what the state fails to mention are the notable “hidden hazards” of the Influenza vaccine, the very reason the vaccine has remained “optional” and still remains so in all other states of the Union, which for summation purposes, would appear to be the moving enactors’ attempt at starting a “Union” epidemic, which for all intensive purposes, is nothing more than to make a rise up the pole of political stature.

For reference purposes, I direct your attention to:

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:F8LyO_woglwJ:www.nmaseminars.com/files/The%2520Hidden%2520Hazards%2520of%2520the%2520New%2520Flu%2520Vaccine-OptaFlu.doc+hazards+flu+shot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us:

The crucial and evident points noted therein are as follows:

On April 27, 2007, Novartis Vaccines announced that Optaflu, the first cell culture-derived influenza vaccine, would be approved in the E.U. Now, instead of making flu shots from eggs, your next flu shot may be grown in dog kidney cells.

How the “regular” flu shot is made

Each year, between January and March, an FDA advisory panel selects the three influenza strains that are expected to be in circulation during the upcoming flu season. Admitting that the process is an “educated guess,” the CDC sends the selected seed virus to the FDA for approval prior to distributing the viruses to the manufacturers for production. [Emphasis added].

The annual flu shot contains three separate strains: two influenza A strains and one strain of influenza B….A third, new strain, is selected each year and then modified in the lab through the reassortment process before it is added to the seasonal shot.

…Vaccine production is a… process utilizing 500,000 fertilized chicken eggs per day for up to eight months turning hundreds of millions of eggs into “mini-incubators” for the cultured viruses. When the embryo in the fertilized egg is 11-days old, selected eggs are labeled and the amniotic membrane of the chicken embryo (the egg white) is injected with a drop of viral-containing solution. Several days later, the gooey viral suspension is centrifuged—sometimes more than once—to remove as much chicken blood and tissue solution as possible. Residual egg protein frequently remains within the final product and is the reason why persons with an egg allergy are advised against receiving the flu shot. [Emphasis added]…

New Cell Lines…is it new?
... Flu Cell Culture Technology: The Next Frontier Overview

Cell culture-derived influenza vaccines, referred to as “flu cell culture” vaccines are made from animal cells rather than chicken eggs for the production of vaccines. Flu cell culture enables batches of vaccine to be produced in less than six weeks.

One substrate under consideration is in the newly released Novartis vaccine. This flu cell line, called Madin-Darby (MDCK), has been extracted from the kidneys of a healthy female cocker spaniel. The cells have been transformed in the perpetually dividing cells, called “immortalized cells.” Solvay Pharmaceuticals, a Dutch company, has been working with this cell-culture to produce influenza vaccines since the early 1990s, where the cells have been approved for use in the Netherlands. [Emphasis added].

An independent company, Protein Sciences Corporation, has been working to develop a patented influenza vaccine that will be produced from insect cells. This vaccine strategy, known commercially as FluBlok®, isolates a purified concentration of the (H) antigen from the vaccine-bound flu virus and inserts it into a second virus called a baculovirus. The (H)-containing baculovirus is inserted into caterpillar cells growing in culture. Several clinical trials involving the bug-created vaccine have shown that the antigens elicit a strong antibody response in humans.(2)

The FDA is fully aware that the new cell substrates made from animal tissues come with risks that in many ways are no different from the risks associated with using eggs. The cells can become contaminated with adventitious viruses that are potentially deadly. An FDA memo acknowledges the risks:

“The experience in the early 1960s with SV40 contamination of poliovirus and adenovirus vaccines and the continuing questions regarding whether SV40 could be responsible for some human neoplasms [cancers] underscores the importance of keeping viral vaccines free of adventitious agents [viral contaminants]. This is particularly important when there is a theoretical potential for contamination of a vaccine with viruses that might be associated with neoplasia [cancer] …It is unclear whether cell substrates have a greater or lower risk [of contamination] than other types of cells…However, if their growth in tissue culture is not well controlled, there may exist additional opportunities for contamination of cells with a longer lifespan.” (3)

And it gets worse. The same FDA memo goes on to say:
“In addition to the possibility of contamination of cell substrates…the use of immortalized, neoplastic human cells to develop [vaccines] raises theoretical concerns with regard to possible contamination with TSE/BSE agents.” (4)

[Emphasis added].

TSE is Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy, a condition that includes a group of rare degenerative brain disorders characterized by tiny holes in the brain tissues, giving a “spongy” appearance when viewed under a microscope. When this condition occurs in cows it is called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, commonly known as “mad cow disease.” In a study published in 2004, researchers found that any cell line could potentially support the propagation of TSE agents.(5) [Emphasis added].

Clearly, CBER, a division of the FDA, is aware and disquieted over the carcinogenic potential of animal cells and wants manufacturers to take every available precautionary step to eliminate the cells from the vaccine final product. The FDA admits serious concerns about contamination of all types of cell lines. The question that begs an answer is, knowing the cancer-causing potential of the cell lines and the cancer-causing risks of contaminants in the cell lines, why is this technology being promoted? Or better, why is the FDA allowing its use at all? [Emphasis added].

Despite substantial evidence—and even admissions of concern—the FDA appears to be flagrantly ignoring the potential for harm to vaccine recipients through this technology and is recklessly approving the use of these products for the manufacture of the pandemic vaccine. [Emphasis added].

The following are reasons why a law must not be passed requiring the Influenza vaccine, based upon the above-cited article:

(1) Residual egg protein frequently remains within the final product and is the reason why persons with an egg allergy are advised against receiving the flu shot. [Emphasis added]. Although the current law also provides that ““Under state law…medical exemptions [may] be granted,” in no way does this negate the fact that a “law is a law.” In that aspect alone, the law must not be passed in the interest of all.

(2) An FDA advisory panel selects the three influenza strains that are expected to be in circulation during the upcoming flu season. Admitting that the process is an “educated guess,”… [Emphasis added]. There is no evidentiary proof that the vaccine will protect against all strains of the flu, and therefore, is reasonably calculated to be a mere precaution rather than a cure. In that respect, a law cannot be established restricting a parent’s rights based upon probability.

(3) One substrate under consideration is in the newly released Novartis vaccine. This flu cell line, called Madin-Darby (MDCK)… the cells have been approved for use in the Netherlands. [Emphasis added]. There is no determination as to what type of flu vaccine will be given and additionally, there is no way to properly advise of this imperative question. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether or not a flu vaccine that has been approved in another country will or will not be injected into the citizens of this country. In that respect, a law must not be passed mandating this vaccine. The State must not, therefore, require a citizen of this country to foster a foreign element within their bodies.

(4) The FDA acknowledged by way of written memoranda, that it is fully aware that the new cell substrates made from animal tissues come with risks that in many ways are no different from the risks associated with using eggs. The cells can become contaminated with adventitious viruses that are potentially deadly. An FDA memo acknowledges these risks as well. This factual basis speaks volumes and clearly establishes the foundation for objection against the state law.

Bresnitz, a representative the State of New Jersey states, “I thought, Why aren’t we protecting our children?”… “children frequently spread the disease…” See the article in The Star Ledger, referenced hereinabove. Clearly, a law cannot be imposed based upon “thought” and an opinion of frequency. There is no factual basis to support a “thought” that the inalienable rights of parents to decide what is best for their child be abolished. Again, this is nothing more than a clear attempt for political gain and control. The statistics reported by Bresnitz in the referenced article of children hospitalized with the flu, do not outweigh the inherent harm of the vaccine.

With respect to the Polio vaccine, the newly established law does not state the age of the [child] for which the law is intended, and therefore, can be well argued that each and every employee of the state’s political realm must first be vaccinated with this vaccination.

There is no evidentiary analysis as to an outbreak of Polio in the United States, let alone in New Jersey. While the Salk vaccination worked wonders in 1955, that is not the case in modern America. In addition, what about the numerous other vaccinations required under the new law? Again, this is a moral and ethical outrage.

The following quote was taken from http://www.whale.to/v/sv.html.:

"The one virus which we were able to isolate and characterize is unmistakably African green monkey cytomegalovirus. I had notified centers for disease control by way of a manuscript and a request to transfer some of this information when I first had it, which was back in 1994, without any real success, but when the data was unequivocal, which was in 1995, we contacted the Bureau. At that stage, we were really just trying to get some reassurance that they no longer used monkey kidneys to make polio vaccines and were told that unfortunately they still did.....The issue of interest with HIV vaccines and so forth. .. it is known that African green monkeys have a retrovirus called simian immunodeficiency virus, SIV. There is a general relationship between SIV and HIV, though they’re not that closely related that, by normal kinetic mechanisms, one could see that they were both coming together. What is of interest is the fact that the African green monkeys brought out in the early part of the century to America were SIV negative...The question is as to whether or not SIV infections in the monkeys in Africa may have, in fact, been introduced in this century and were not an infection that predated hundreds of years but, rather, was introduced into the monkeys in some of the early experimentation done in vaccine development, and there’s a real interesting argument that, in fact, man may have infected African monkeys which then, in turn, processed the virus and returned it back to man in the form of HIV."--Dr Martin

The following information was obtained from this website: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/VaccineResearcher.html

Statistics and PropagandaHow many Americans really die of the flu each year? Ask the American Lung Association. Better yet, read their own report from August 2004, titled "Trends in Pneumonia and Influenza/Morbidity and Mortality". This report comes from the Research and Scientific Affairs Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. At the bottom of the document, the source is listed as the National Center for Health Statistics, "Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1979–2001".
Get ready for some surprises, especially since the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) keeps trumpeting flu-death annual numbers as 36,000. Like clockwork. Year in and year out, 36,000 people in the US die from the flu every year. Killer disease. Watch out! Get your flu shot. Every autumn. Don't wait. You might fall over dead in the street!

Here are the total influenza deaths from the report (from 1979 to 1995, the stats were released every two years):

1979: 604;
1981: 3,006;
1983: 1,431;
1985: 2,054;
1987: 632;
1989: 1,593;
1991: 1,137;
1993: 1,044;
1995: 606;
1996: 745;
1997: 720;
1998: 1,724;
1999: 1,665;
2000: 1765;
2001: 257.

Don't believe me? Here is the page: http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF. Get there and go to page nine of the document. Then start scrolling down until you come to the chart for flu deaths as a separate category.Recently, Tommy Thompson, head of US Health and Human Services, stated that 91 per cent of the people who die from the flu in the US every year are 65 and older. So you might engage in a little arithmetic and figure out how many people under 65 are really dying from the flu each year. But no matter. The raw all-ages stats are low enough. Quite low enough. Quite, quite.

Do you see what is going on here? You can go into my archive and read recent pieces on this subject and find my argument for those who blithely claim, "Well, harumph, you see, uh, ah, flu often leads to pneumonia and that's why we have to be so careful about the flu. Deaths from pneumonia are in large numbers, harumph, blah blah blah..."

It's a straight con, folks. The CDC is on a street corner with a little table, and there are shills walking around repeating the 36,000 deaths figure while the PR flacks at the table are working the vaccine angle. The crowd is getting restless. A man shouts, "Where is my flu shot? We're all going to die!" Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congress is planning a measure that will guarantee vaccine manufacturers annual billion-dollar payoffs, no matter how many doses are left over unused.

Now that a much clearer picture emerges of the low number of flu deaths in the US each year, it's only natural to revisit the issue of vaccines. Minus the hysteria about "high numbers of flu deaths" and the "pressing need to get the vaccine", what we are really dealing with? The answer is PR. Propaganda is being used to artificially inflate flu statistics and thereby drive people into doctors' offices and clinics to get their shots. So what about vaccines? How safe and effective are they?

I have long warned about the dangers of vaccines, especially for babies and young children, whose immune systems are not capable of coping with the many contaminants and toxic preservatives in vaccines. There are other reasons why even adults should avoid them. Now, for the first time, a former insider from within the vaccine industry has agreed to talk about the dangers of vaccines.

"Dr Mark Randall" is the pseudonym of a former vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the laboratories of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health. He is now retired and has reluctantly agreed to speak out. In my opinion, his testimony matches all the other claims that I have studied in past years.

This interview that follows is important not only because of Dr Randall's intimate knowledge of vaccine dangers but for his testimony about the inside workings and cover-ups between government and the vaccine industry—the two sources that keep trying to assure Americans that they can be trusted. This major excerpt is perhaps the best single written summary of the back-up evidence for the case against immunisations.

INTERVIEW WITH A FORMER VACCINE RESEARCHERQ (Jon Rappoport): You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A (Dr Mark Randall): Yes, I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once "part of the Club". I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling, too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle". If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honourable people, these vaccines would not be granted licences. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realised I was working in a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases—say, meningitis—that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.Vaccine contamination
Q: Now, you worked in labs where purity is an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities, are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumours...that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella, hep[atitis] A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human foetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and polio virus in these vaccines from time to time, which may have come from that foetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that is puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein", which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defences.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was "Don't worry; this can't be helped". In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum [aluminium] which are purposely put into vaccines [as preservatives].
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are. Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.False assumptions about vaccine safety
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines: that they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer" cells.
Q: The immune system is...?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It has to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines do not come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is that this has nothing to do with the vaccine.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few [researchers working within drug companies] who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose child died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this child was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the child had got a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no proper long-term studies are done on any vaccines using a control group. Part of what I mean is, no correct and deep follow-up is done, taking into account the fact that vaccines can induce, over time, various symptoms and serious problems which fall outside the range of the disease for which the person was vaccinated. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is...?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe". But what do they base those judgements on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed, where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realise that these are not isolated situations.Competing interests
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labelled with "guilt by association". All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if". They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives: money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on...
Q: The furore over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine and then, in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hepatitis B from sexual contacts and shared needles is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes", and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,000 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning...
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity, stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine, is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says anything. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.
You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funnelled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fallout. Researchers, a few, might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together is safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float into the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people when I think they will use it well.Burden of proof and the need for studies on vaccine safety
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed, long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things—the things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause—which diseases, how that happens...
A: We are basically talking about two potential, harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from, because some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get that disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism—what's called autism—or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is not limited to a few cases as we have been led to believe.
In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every State, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is "appear". What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.\
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his[/her] mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win. About the Interviewer:
Jon Rappoport has worked as a freelance investigative reporter for 20 years. He has appeared as a guest on over 200 radio and TV programs, including ABC's Nightline, PBS's Tony Brown's Journal and Hard Copy.
For the last 10 years, Jon has operated largely away from the mainstream. Over the last 30 years, his independent research has encompassed deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites. In 1996, Jon started The Great Boycott against eight corporate chemical giants: Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, Hoechst, Rhône-Poulenc, Imperial Chemical Industries and Ciba-Geigy. The boycott continues to operate today.A graduate of Amherst College, Massachusetts, with a BA in Philosophy, Jon is sixty-three and lives with his wife, Dr Laura Thompson, in San Diego, California.

Jon's article "School Violence: The Psychiatric Drugs Connection" was published in NEXUS 6/05. His book Oklahoma City Bombing was reviewed in NEXUS 3/02.
Jon Rappoport can be contacted by email at rappoportjon@hotmail.com or via his website, http://www.nomorefakenews.com.

In conclusion and based upon the foregoing, the government of the State of New Jersey must not pass a law requiring the now optional vaccinations. It is respectfully submitted that the State has no authority in this regard.


CONTACT YOUR LEGLISLATURE.

Source Link: http://againstmandatoryvaccinations.9f.com/




Sincerely, An Outraged Citizen of the State of New Jersey