New Jersey Defeats Mandatory Vaccine Bill

Everywhere we look, we find signs of out-of-control Big Pharma influence on medical policies and public health laws. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering drug ads account for the vast majority of most media outlets’ advertising revenues.

As a result, the media are no longer providing us with fair and balanced reporting on the prevention and treatment of disease, and this certainly includes the subject of drugs and vaccines. As reported by Periscope News Group editor-in-chief, Christina Morales:1

“Prescription medications are a multi-BILLION-dollar industry that’s making not only the pharmaceutical companies tons of money, but also the network television stations … Did you know that pharmaceutical advertising has soared 62 percent since 2012 and is projected to cost $610 billion by 2021? …

The average American watches 16 hours of pharmaceutical commercials each year which is more time than they spend with their primary physician. One-third of these people ask their doctors about a drug advertisement and most request a prescription.

Clearly this type of advertising in generating a huge response from the public, but it also is having an impact that consumers rarely think about: if these companies are paying television networks billions of dollars to advertise their drugs, would their news stations risk losing big money accounts by reporting negative information about the company?

Public figure and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once shared that, ‘I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads … He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.’

Drug Industry Is the Hidden Hand Behind Vaccine Laws

During the 2019 U.S. legislative session, 22 bills were introduced in 17 states proposing to eliminate vaccine exemptions.2 One of them was New Jersey bill S2171, which tried to repeal the religious vaccine exemption and require students of all ages to be fully vaccinated or lose their right to a school education.

December 12, 2019, a hearing on the bill was held by the New Jersey Senate Health Committee, which voted in favor (6 to 4) of sending it to the floor.3 However, while the bill was widely expected to breeze through the Senate, it came to a screeching halt due to the massive uprising of concerned citizens who publicly protested against it.
As reported by The New York Times January 13, 2020:4

“It began as one of the nation’s broadest proposed bans on religious exemptions to childhood vaccines. But after weeks of sustained and boisterous protests … as well as a last-minute effort to amend the proposed bill to win the support of key lawmakers, the effort collapsed on Monday in the New Jersey State Senate …

Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat and a sponsor of the legislation, said that the Senate would immediately reintroduce a new version of the bill and begin the process anew. This time, she said, the Legislature might hold public hearings with doctors and scientists to debunk opponents’ concerns. ‘The science is settled on this,’ Ms. Weinberg said.”

Vaccine Science Is Far From Settled

Is the science on vaccine safety really settled? Far from it. There’s a broad base of scientific studies questioning both the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. The growing number of people filing vaccine-injury claims with the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) also speaks to the fact that there’s a problem, as does the scientific evidence showing industry-funded vaccine studies are riddled with bias.5,6

What’s more, the more we learn about infectious diseases and how vaccines work, the more we realize just how little we actually know, and how many of our assumptions are seriously flawed.7

One of the primary reasons we’re not getting objective reporting on these issues from the media is, again, because most news organizations make the bulk of their money from the drug industry (i.e., drug ads). They simply cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds them, and so they become complicit in the cover-up by default.

New Jersey Bill S2171 Is Defeated

In its original form, S2171 eliminated the religious vaccine exemption for children attending daycare and schools in New Jersey, established a state-run review board to approve all medical exemptions, and required students of all ages enrolled in daycare, primary school and higher education, both public and private, including higher education online classes, to be fully vaccinated.

As reported by Children’s Health Defense legal counsel, Mary Holland,8 “under the terms of the law, a 60-year old taking a cooking class at a community college could be required to prove vaccination status before enrollment. This could include even online courses at any institution of higher education in New Jersey.”

As such, it was the broadest vaccine exemption elimination bill introduced so far, which is why its defeat on January 13, 2020, was such a major victory. Make no mistake, it was the participation of thousands of people who showed up for the hearings at the state capitol that allowed for this victory.9 Without that overwhelming pressure, there’s no doubt in my mind the bill would have passed.

In an effort to push the legislation through, amendments were made so that the religious vaccine exemption would be available in private schools but not public schools. However, as reported by The New York Times,10 this only raised new concerns. Many argued the amendment gave wealthy families the ability to exempt their children attending expensive private schools, while denying the same right to children whose parents cannot afford to pay for private school.

As reported by News24 in the video above, New Jersey Senate president Stephen Sweeney — who remains adamant the bill eventually will become law – effectively “bought” votes to try to pass S2171 by offering Senators who were planning to vote “no” on the bill financial support in future elections through the General Majority super PAC funds in exchange for their “yes” vote.

News24 also highlights Sweeney’s deep connections to the drug industry, which appear to be part and parcel of why he’s such a determined advocate for mandatory vaccinations and the removal of exemptions. Fortunately, not even these highly questionable last-ditch efforts were enough to pass the bill.

Informed Consent Is the Bedrock of Medical Ethics

A January 17, 2020, Health Impact News post11 reviews the scientifically referenced testimony submitted by Dr. Meryl Nass before the Massachusetts legislature, which is also considering legislation that will eliminate the religious vaccine exemption. In her testimony, Nass stated pointed out that:12

There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations, either in Massachusetts or the United States …

The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits … The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide …

This is an industry that has thrived by taking big risks — even when manufacturers knew in advance that their products killed … Pharma’s latest risky strategy is trying to rid the world of vaccine exemptions, to prevent vaccine opt-outs before a new crop of vaccines with inadequate safety and efficacy testing — and for which they will have no liability once placed on the childhood schedule — are approved …

It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill … Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy …

Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary. Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them. Only when vaccinated individuals have rates of illness at least 10 times higher than the unvaccinated, is the side effect likely to be linked to the vaccine.

A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents. This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics.

Countries that bought the swine flu vaccines … were required to waive manufacturer liability as a condition of purchase … It should be apparent, but isn’t: Government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.

The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.”

Nass goes on to cite statistics showing why the claim that draconian laws are required to control the “crisis” of vaccine-preventable diseases is false. She also points out that:

“The bedrock expectation of medical ethics is that patients must give informed consent13 for all medical procedures, including vaccines. Informed consent means that patients must be informed about the procedure, have the right to refuse, and may not be coerced to accept it.

Isn’t withholding an education an extreme form of coercion? Without any discussion of its moral or ethical dimensions by media, medical societies or government officials, the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures, including vaccinations, vanishes in the blink of an eye when patients are not allowed the right to refuse.”

Doctors Are Selling Out to the Drug Industry Too 

Media corporations and politicians aren’t the only ones beholden to the drug industry. In 2013, ProPublica exposed how drug companies bribe hundreds of thousands of American doctors to prescribe expensive and often dangerous drugs.14

One way in which drug companies enlist medical professionals to push their wares is to offer them lucrative speaking engagements, in which they promote the company’s drugs. While presented as “educational,” these expert lectures are nothing but thinly veiled sales pitches.

Despite rising concern over these kinds of conflicts of interest, ProPublica’s latest Dollars for Doctors report reveals the trend has only grown and gotten worse over the years. In its October 2019 report, ProPublica writes:15

“Back in 2013, ProPublica detailed what seemed a stunning development in the pharmaceutical industry’s drive to win the prescription pads of the nation’s doctors:

In just four years, one doctor had earned $1 million giving promotional talks and consulting for drug companies; 21 others had made more than $500,000. Six years later — despite often damning scrutiny from prosecutors and academics — such high earnings have become commonplace.

More than 2,500 physicians have received at least half a million dollars apiece from drugmakers and medical device companies in the past five years alone. More than 700 of those doctors received at least $1 million …

There has been almost no change in how much the industry is spending. Each year from 2014 to 2018, drug and medical device companies spent between $2.1 billion and $2.2 billion paying doctors for speaking and consulting, as well as on meals, travel and gifts for them …

Roughly the same number of doctors — more than 600,000 — received payments in any given year … For context, there are about 1.1 million doctors in the United States.”

Vaccines Give a ‘Healthy Boost’ to Doctors’ Bottom Line

In a 2015 Family Practice Management article,16,17,18 Dr. Jamie Loehr shared with other family physicians how giving every CDC recommended vaccine to all patients, regardless of age, can provide a “strong, healthy boost to the bottom line” of their medical practice.

“Minimizing costs and maximizing reimbursement can make immunizations profitable,” Loehr writes. He then goes on to explain where and how to get the needed vaccines for the lowest price, and how to properly code for the service in order to maximize insurance reimbursements.

Ironically — considering the vast majority of doctors do not disclose the full range of potential side effects of a given vaccine — one of the biggest money-makers is the code for vaccine counseling for patients under 18, as combined vaccines such as the MMR and DTaP allow the doctor to bill for three and four counseling components respectively.

For the MMR, they can bill for informing you about the risks and benefits of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines (i.e., three counseling components) and for the DTaP, they can bill for informing you about diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio (i.e., four counseling components).

Some of the potential side effects actually listed on vaccine inserts and adverse events for which victims have received compensation from the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) are listed in my previous article, “How Much Do You Really Know About Vaccine Safety?

I suggest reading through those lists and comparing them to what your child’s pediatrician or your doctor have told you about vaccine side effects. Many doctors are not providing parents with the Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) required under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to be given to parents before children are vaccinated, and rarely are more serious side effects mentioned before a vaccine is given.

Parents can always ask doctors for a copy of the actual manufacturer vaccine product insert, which accompanies vials of vaccines shipped to doctors’ offices, and is required by FDA regulations to list known and reported side effects.

Conflicts of Interest Rule the Roost

Doctors have a longstanding history of being revered as experts, whose morals and integrity are above reproach, and whose knowledge should not be questioned. This is why doctors were featured in cigarette ads in the 1930s and ’40s,19 before the dangers of smoking became firmly established.

It is also why doctors like Dr. Paul Offit, Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Richard Pan are now pervasively featured in articles insisting that everyone should be legally required to purchase and use all vaccines recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and medical trade associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American Medical Association (AMA).

Offit, Hotez and Pan are hardly the only vaccine experts in the U.S., let alone the world, yet the views of these two are routinely brought forth as the voices of medical consensus on vaccine safety.

This, despite the fact that Offit is a vaccine developer who has been caught making false statements20 and has significant conflicts of interest with the vaccine industry,21 including owning vaccine patents, and Pan, in his role as California Senator, has received significant amounts of money from corporations marketing vaccines.

Between 2013 and 2014, Pan received more than $95,000 from drug companies and their trade groups.22 In February 2015, he introduced bill SB277,23,24 which repealed the Californian personal belief vaccine, which included religious and conscience or philosophical beliefs. Coincidence?

Another vaccine developer and mandatory vaccination proponent with industry ties is Professor Peter Hotez.25,26 He also has financial ties The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,27 which is has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into global vaccination programs. 

Resistance Is Never Futile

The fact that New Jersey managed to thwart the latest attack on medical freedom is an encouraging sign. Never underestimate the power of the people! The key is numbers — you have to actually take action by contacting your legislators ahead of time to communicate your concerns about a bill you oppose (or support) and showing up at public hearings and on days when votes are taken in your state Capitol.

Thousands of individuals gathered in hallways and outside the Capitol building in Trenton to protest of S2171 on multiple occasions, and it was undoubtedly the sheer size of the opposition that greatly helped to defeat the bill.

The fight is not over though. Senator Weinberg has promised to reintroduce the bill in some altered form, and hopefully, residents will rise to the occasion yet again when it does.

Stay up to date on vaccine-related bills that are moving in your state this year, including bills proposing to take away (or expand) your right to obtain a vaccine exemption for yourself or your child. Register to become a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal operated by the National Vaccine Information Center and access bill analyses and talking points to educate your legislators.

Maine Could Become the First State to Overturn Bad Vaccine Law

In related news, Maine is fighting to repeal a new vaccine law that eliminated non-medical vaccine exemptions in 2019 and urgently needs your support. The veto referendum to overturn the bill (LD798) which was enacted into law in 2019 will be on a March 3, 2020 ballot.

The new law revokes religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions and prevents access to work and education for those who have not received every state mandated vaccine.28

Maine is the first state to put government vaccine mandates and repeal of exemptions to a popular vote through a veto referendum included on a ballot. To succeed and set the precedent for other states to follow, they need your support now.

Smaller states are easier to win because there are fewer people to educate on the issue at hand, which means less money is required for advertising. Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

The “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign needs to raise at least $1 million within the next 30 days to stand a chance against the pharmaceutical industry’s deep pockets. You can make a difference by making a donation to this campaign below (and, if you are a registered voter in Maine, by making sure to cast a vote on Mar. 3, 2020 to restore vaccine exemptions in the state).

Glyphosate Is a Primary Cause of Kidney Damage

Application of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, is unprecedented in scale, and we haven’t even reached the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding its far-reaching environmental and human health effects. Since genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” crops, which are tolerant of glyphosate, were introduced, global usage of glyphosate rose nearly fifteenfold.1

Usage is so pervasive that researchers have stated, “no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use” in the U.S., and this is likely the case globally as well.2 Cancer has emerged as one of the leading health risks of glyphosate, and approximately 42,700 U.S. lawsuits from individuals alleging that glyphosate caused them to develop cancer have already been filed.3

However, other chronic diseases have also been linked to the chemical, including kidney disease. In January 2020, research published in Environmental Pollution identified glyphosate in the urine of 11.1% of the infants and young children they tested, and this rose to 30% among newborns.4

Despite the detectable levels of glyphosate, the study did not find an association between low-level glyphosate exposure and markers of kidney injury, but the researchers noted the study was limited by a small sample size and, “The lack of evident renal toxicity in association with glyphosate exposure in young children does not exclude a potential adverse impact of longer term exposure to the pesticide.”5

The researchers further noted, “Further studies of larger sample size are indicated to better understand putative deleterious effects of the herbicide after different levels of exposure.”6

Glyphosate’s Link to Kidney Damage

Significant bioaccumulation of glyphosate has been documented in the kidney, an organ with known susceptibility to glyphosate. Glyphosate-induced kidney toxicity has been associated with disturbances in the expression of genes associated with fibrosis, necrosis and mitochondrial membrane dysfunction.7

Further, as noted by the Environmental Pollution study researchers, “Previous studies have associated glyphosate exposure with changes in renal function, kidney injury, and chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology. There is growing evidence linking glyphosate exposure with the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of unknown origin in farmworkers in Central America, Sri Lanka and central India.”8

Dr. Sarath Gunatilake, professor of health science at the University of California and Channa Jayasumana, Ph.D., a faculty member of Medicine and Allied Sciences at the Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, have published papers linking glyphosate exposure to chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) in Sri Lankan farmers.9

In 2014, they hypothesized that consumption of glyphosate-contaminated water may contribute to chronic kidney disease by facilitating the transport of heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium into the kidneys.10 Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy (SAN), a form of chronic kidney disease among paddy farmers that was first reported in 1994, has become the most debilitating public health issue in parts of Sri Lanka.

Glyphosate May Be a Primary Cause of Kidney Disease

In 2015, Gunatilake and colleagues noted that people living in areas with endemic SAN are exposed to multiple heavy metals and glyphosate, adding further support that the condition is toxicological in origin:11

“Although we could not localize a single nephrotoxin as the culprit for SAN, multiple heavy metals and glyphosates may play a role in the pathogenesis. Heavy metals excessively present in the urine samples of patients with SAN are capable of causing damage to kidneys. Synergistic effects of multiple heavy metals and agrochemicals may be nephrotoxic.”

In another 2015 study published by the team, it was found that people who drank water from wells where glyphosate and heavy metal concentrations are higher had a fivefold increased risk of CKDu.12 In 2019, researchers again named agricultural chemicals, including glyphosate and paraquat, as possible primary factors in CKDu, noting:13

“ … [G]lyphosate causes insidious harm through its action as an amino acid analogue of glycine, and … this interferes with natural protective mechanisms against other exposures.

Glyphosate’s synergistic health effects in combination with exposure to other pollutants, in particular paraquat, and physical labor in the ubiquitous high temperatures of lowland tropical regions, could result in renal damage consistent with CKDu in Sri Lanka.”

Controversy Over Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award

Gunatilake and Jayasumana’s research linking glyphosate to chronic kidney disease was so significant that they received notable recognition from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest scientific society and publisher of several journals, including Science.

Since 1980, AAAS has presented an annual award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to “scientists, engineers or their organizations, whose exemplary actions have demonstrated scientific freedom and responsibility in challenging circumstances.”

As noted by AAAS, “Some awardees have risked their freedom and even physical safety by their actions, while others have been honored for their advocacy and their leadership.”14 In 2019, AAAS was slated to present the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to Gunatilake and Jayasumana, who certainly faced their share of adversity in speaking out against glyphosate.

An AAAS press release even noted that the researchers “faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, an herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries.”15

Jessica Wyndham, director of the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program, further noted, “To right a wrong when significant financial interests are at stake and the power imbalance between industry and individual is at play takes the unique combination of scientific rigor, professional persistence and acceptance of personal risk demonstrated by the two scientists recognized by this year’s award.”16

The award announcement was met with significant backlash from industry, however, leading AAAS to backtrack and retract the award, stating they agree to “taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented … as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection.”17

Science Prevails, Glyphosate Scientists Awarded After All

After implementing a lengthy peer review to evaluate the 2019 award, AAAS decided their original decision was the right one after all and have now formally listed Gunatilake and Jayasumaa as the recipients of the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility award, noting the scientists “investigated a possible connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease under challenging circumstances.”18

The wording is notably different, however, from AAAS’ original description,19 which has since been taken down but once referred to the researchers as “public health researchers who battled powerful corporate interests to uncover the deadly effects of industrial herbicides.”20

Jayasumana had suspected that industry had negatively influenced the AAAS initially, but with their research vindicated, he told Monga Bay, “Science has prevailed. That’s why, after certain groups opposed our selection and undermined our professional work, the research work has been upheld as credible.”21

Glyphosate’s Link to Chronic Disease

Gunatilake and Jayasumaa are not alone in their findings that glyphosate is capable of causing chronic disease. A number of animal studies have linked glyphosate to liver damage, for instance, including one that dates back to 1979, which showed the chemical could disrupt mitochondria in rat livers.

While the actual study is behind a paywall — meaning you have to pay to read it it — it is referenced and duplicated in a 2015 study that affirmed that chronic exposure to the chemical “can result in liver and kidney damage.”22,23

Glyphosate is also known to trigger the production of reactive oxygen species, leading to oxidative stress. As noted in Scientific Reports, “Elevation in oxidative stress markers is detected in rat liver and kidney after subchronic exposure to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] at the United States permitted glyphosate concentration of 700??g/L in drinking water.”24,25

Researchers from King’s College London also showed an “ultra-low dose” of glyphosate-based herbicides was damaging.26

Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has also been studying glyphosate for years and determined that the increase in glyphosate usage in the U.S., as well as in Canada, is extremely well correlated with the concurrent increase in the incidence of multiple diseases, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder cancer and myeloid leukemia.27

Research scientist Anthony Samsel is one of Seneff’s co-authors, and together they’ve suggested that one of the ways glyphosate is harmful is via disruption of glycine homeostasis. Glyphosate has a glycine molecule as part of its structure (hence the “gly” in glyphosate). Glycine is a very common amino acid your body uses to make proteins.

Samsel and Seneff believe your body can substitute glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) into peptides and proteins, which results in damaged peptides and proteins being produced.

Glycine also plays a role in quenching inflammation, as explained in “Glycine Quells Oxidative Damage by Inhibiting NOX Superoxide Production and Boosting NADPH,” and is used up in the detoxification process. As a result of glyphosate toxicity, many of us may not have enough glycine for efficient detoxification.

How to Detox Glyphosate

Glyphosate residues are found in many foods, including genetically engineered crops and non-GE grains, such as oats. One of the best ways to avoid exposure is to eat organic or biodynamically grown food, and invest in a good water filtration system for your home to lower exposure that may occur via drinking water. You’ll also want to avoid using glyphosate-based products around your home, garden or workplace.

If you’re interested, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide. They’re also in the process of doing hair testing for glyphosate, which is a better test for long-term exposure.

If it turns out that you have measurable levels of glyphosate in your body, Seneff recommends consuming organic, unpasteurized apple cider vinegar, as it contains acetobacter, which can break down glyphosate. She also suggests eating garlic and cruciferous vegetables, which are good sources of sulfur.

Glycine supplementation may also be a good option to help detoxify glyphosate, as to eliminate glyphosate, you need to saturate your body with glycine.

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, who is a specialist in metal toxicity and its connection to chronic infections, recommends taking 1 teaspoon (4 grams) of glycine powder twice a day for a few weeks and then lower the dose to one-fourth teaspoon (1 gram) twice a day. This forces the glyphosate out of your system, allowing it to be eliminated through your urine.

I personally have been taking 1 gram twice a day for some time now. Glycine is inexpensive and tastes sweet. Ideally it is best to take it around the time you are eating food that might be contaminated with glyphosate, of which, unfortunately, there are many.

Roche Flu Medication Fraud Stole Billions

A whistleblower lawsuit has been filed against drugmaker Roche, alleging the company made false claims and misrepresented studies, causing the U.S. government to stockpile $1.5 billion of its influenza medicine Tamiflu (oseltamivir).1

The lawsuit was filed by Dr. Thomas Jefferson, a researcher associated with the Cochrane Collaboration research network, under the False Claims Act, in which individuals may file suit on behalf of the government. Jefferson has been questioning Tamiflu’s effectiveness since 2009.

The lawsuit, which was unsealed in September 2019, alleges Roche duped the U.S. government into stockpiling Tamiflu while mispresenting its effectiveness. According to the Houston-based Lanier Law Firm, which filed the suit:

“The lawsuit claims the drugmaker’s scheme involved publishing misleading articles falsely stating that Tamiflu reduces complications, severity, hospitalizations, mortality and transmission of influenza.

The company then used those articles to aggressively market the drug to the government for pandemic use. Relying on the supposed truthfulness of Roche’s claims, federal and state governments spent about $1.5 billion to stockpile Tamiflu to combat influenza pandemics.”2

‘Multisystem Failure’ Involved in Tamiflu’s Success

Antiviral drugs like Tamiflu are still recommended by government agencies like the U.S. CDC,3 despite long-standing studies questioning their effectiveness and safety.

At one point, the World Health Organization (WHO) even classified Tamiflu as an “essential” medicine,4 “selected with due regard to public health relevance, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness” — but downgraded the drug’s status in 2017.

In July 2017, WHO moved Tamiflu from a “core” essential medicine to a “complementary” drug, which is used for those that are less cost effective.5 (To clarify, a correction to the article was published in November 2017, saying the drug was still on the essential list, but “downgraded.”6)

In a BMJ editorial, Mark Ebell, professor of epidemiology at the University of Georgia, called the move “far too late” and described a multisystem failure that allowed Tamiflu to become a blockbuster medication.7 According to Ebell:8

“Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1999 for the treatment of uncomplicated influenza within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. The manufacturer’s press release stated that the drug was studied in two randomised trials enrolling a total of 849 patients with influenza and reported a 1.3 day mean reduction in the duration of symptoms.

The drug was described as safe, with less than 1% of patients discontinuing it because of adverse effects. It was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2002. On the basis of these limited (and ultimately revealed as incomplete) data, governments acted.

Concerned about a possible outbreak of avian influenza, as well as the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, the UK government stockpiled oseltamivir at a cost of over £600m (€680m; $770m) from 2006 to 2014. Similarly, the US government has spent over $1.5bn stockpiling the drug, based on recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”

Examples of system-wide failures that let Tamiflu slip through regulatory cracks included a failure to publish all available evidence and make that data available at the individual patient level, along with a failure of recognizing the limitations inherent to observational data.

It wasn’t until repeated requests from The BMJ were honored that data from unpublished trials were released to researchers, revealing the true extent of Tamiflu’s effectiveness — or lack thereof.9

Tamiflu Reduced Duration of Flu by Just 16.8 Hours

In the BMJ review of Tamiflu it’s found that Tamiflu shortened the duration of flu symptoms by less than a day, specifically, by just 16.8 hours, and did not affect the number of hospitalizations.10 In exchange for this very modest benefit, Tamiflu caused nausea and vomiting and increased the risk of headaches and renal and psychiatric syndromes.

“The trade-off between benefits and harms should be borne in mind when making decisions to use oseltamivir for treatment, prophylaxis or stockpiling,” the researchers added.11 What’s more, in a Cochrane Review of the data on both Tamiflu and Relenza (zanamivir), another antiviral drug, Jefferson and colleagues noted:12

“Based on our assessments of the regulatory documents (in excess of 160,000 pages), we came to the conclusion that there were substantial problems with the design, conduct, reporting and availability of information from many of the trials … We identified problems in the design of many of the studies that we included, which affects our confidence in their results.”

Further, the review noted that the drugmakers’ proposed mechanism of action, which suggests the drugs work via a multisystem and central action, does not fit with the clinical evidence they reviewed. Any beneficial effects of the drug may have occurred due to lowering levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines or via depressing the central nervous system, not by actually inhibiting the replication of the influenza virus.13

Tamiflu Causes Psychiatric Symptoms

Tamiflu and Relenza are part of a group of anti-influenza drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which work by blocking a viral enzyme that helps the influenza virus to invade cells in your respiratory tract.

The problem is that your nervous system also contains neuraminidase enzymes essential for proper brain functioning, and when blocked with these dangerous drugs, severe neurotoxicity may ensue, especially in the infants and children whose blood-brain barrier has not yet developed sufficiently.

Serious side effects include convulsions, delirium or delusions and suicidal behavior. In January 2020, an Oregon woman warned that her son experienced hallucinations while taking the drug, telling a news outlet, “He was saying that everything was going fast and that everything was in fast forward. He was hearing voices. He was seeing things. He was crying and grabbing his head and it was really scary.”14

The boy’s pediatrician said the hallucinations were due to Tamiflu, and Dr. James Shames, Jackson County medical health director, likewise stated, “Psychiatric symptoms are more unusual. It wasn’t even recognized until after the drug had been released and they started doing further studies. It does look like it occurs more commonly in children.”15

In another report, a 6-year-old girl in Texas also had hallucinations while taking Tamiflu and even tried to jump out of a second story window.16 A 16-year-old boy with no prior suicidal thoughts or depression also committed suicide less than 24 hours after taking the drug, which his parents believe is what caused the suicide to occur.17

Japan banned the use of Tamiflu in children and teens in 2007, after cases of teenagers trying to dump from apartment building windows while taking the drug. In 2018, the country lifted the ban, but still said the relationship between Tamiflu and the unusual actions is unclear and patients should be warned of such side effects.18

Corruption Surrounding Tamiflu

Corruption has surrounded Tamiflu from the start. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was made the chairman of a company called Gilead in 1997. While drug company Roche manufactured Tamiflu, it was developed by Gilead decades ago, and they gave Roche the exclusive rights to market and sell the drug in 1996 (an agreement they attempted to terminate in 2005).19

Rumsfeld held major portions of stock in Gilead and was reported to have made more than $5 million from selling shares of the company around the time of the bird flu hoax in 2005. Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead between 1988 and 2001, and when he left to join the Bush administration he reportedly retained a large shareholding (worth $25 million or more).

Roche also engaged in extensive lobbying to influence countries to stockpile Tamiflu, including in Denmark. In a 2018 review published in the Journal of Public Health, researchers investigated how members of Denmark’s pandemic planning committee experienced lobbying efforts by Roche, noting:20

“Roche promoted Tamiflu using two arguments: that the procurement deal had to be signed quickly because the drug would be delivered on a first-come, first-served basis, and that Denmark was at heightened risk in the event of a major influenza outbreak because it had a smaller Tamiflu stockpile than other countries.

One informant pointed to how Roche ‘toured’ Denmark and neighbouring countries to ratchet up the volume of Tamiflu stockpiles. Interestingly, and in line with this allegation, in March 2005 Roche sent an official letter directly to the Swedish Minister of Health and Social Affairs (and copies to the Director Generals of the National Board of Health and Welfare and the Crisis Management Agency) that exactly repeated these two arguments …

Furthermore, Roche practised tactics that included both lobbying through direct contact and lobbying through a seemingly independent third party, i.e. the DSI [Danish Health Institute].

In addition, some interviewees suspected third party lobbying via colleagues. The DSI was established by the public sector to conduct independent research, yet it still agreed to act on behalf of the company — quite a disturbing finding.”

Lawsuit Alleges Roche Knew Tamiflu Was Ineffective

The whistleblower lawsuit alleges that Roche knew Tamiflu was ineffective at fighting influenza pandemics but went ahead and “masterfully marketed this drug to fill Roche’s coffers at taxpayer expense,” Clayton Halunen of Halunen Law said. “This is precisely the type of corporate behavior the False Claims Act is designed to stop.”21

Because the False Claims Act mandates payment of triple damages along with civil penalties, Roche could face a judgment in excess of $4.5 billion. Attorney Mark Lanier, of Lanier Law Firm, added:22

“As alleged in the complaint — Tamiflu does not do what Roche promised. Roche hid this fact for many years by selectively citing its studies and suppressing the data about Tamiflu. The company utilized lobbyists, key opinion leaders and ghostwriters to promote Tamiflu with a deceptive promise to governments fearful of an influenza pandemic.”

While Roche is on trial for fraud, the fact remains that Tamiflu is likely to do little to help in the event you or a loved one comes down with flu, and it could end up causing harm. Prevention is a far better option, and along these lines vitamin D testing and optimization has been shown to cut your risk of respiratory infections, including colds and flu, in half if you are vitamin D deficient.23,24

In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best respiratory illness prevention and optimal health strategies available. Influenza has also been treated with high-dose vitamin C,25 and taking zinc lozenges at the first sign of respiratory illness can also be helpful.

Following other basic tenets of health, like eating right, getting sound sleep, exercising and addressing stress are also important, as is regularly washing your hands — sound advice for staying healthy not only during flu season but also year-round.

China epidemic—implications for America and other countries

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

To keep up with my new articles on the so-called “epidemic,” it really helps to read my earlier pieces (archive here). I don’t recapitulate all the relevant facts every time I sit down to write. If I did, I’d be posting books instead of articles.

So…as I write this one, about 40 million Chinese citizens are on lockdown and quarantine in their cities. This is truly extraordinary. One US vaccine-funding official was heard to say China was a “silver lining” in the coronavirus epidemic—because that government is able to exert so much control over its people and, therefore, help contain the epidemic.

You could almost hear him thinking, “I wish we could do that in America.”

America, UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

You can bet your bottom dollar public health officials all over the world are gathering data on how well “the Chinese experiment” is going. They want to learn lessons. They want to know more about containment, mass quarantines, and lockdowns.

Could, for instance, an American president suddenly declare an emergency in the US and issue orders for travel restrictions on a broad scale?

Could he confine citizens to their cities? Could he bring troops into a city and have them assemble in large public places and wave wands at people to look for body temperature elevation and cart them away to hospitals and other holding areas?

Could federal and state officials cancel sporting and concert events? Could crowds of any kind be forbidden? Could a national election be postponed?

China becomes an example for the rest of the world, you see. “This is what has to be done in dire times, to stop the spread of an epidemic. Look to China. They’re accomplishing the right thing. If the killer virus comes here and spreads, we may to have to follow suit.”

CHINA IS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ICE-BREAKER FOR THE REST OF THE PLANET. “Well, they did it there, so it can be done…”

“Thank you, China. You’ve showed us what efficiency and necessity look like.”

The biggest potential contagion here has nothing to do with the virus. It has to do with other countries deciding to follow China’s example.

And now we come to THE VACCINE against the virus. This is where some very bad rubber meets a very bad road. Several of the novel vaccines being rushed toward approval and production are completely experimental. They have never been openly used on the public. So the stage is set for a grand planet-wide guinea-pig test. In a recent piece, I explained the admitted danger of one of these vaccine varieties—RNA vaccines. They can cause autoimmune reactions. The body goes to war against itself.

What are the chances that one of these new vaccines will be mandated in the US and other countries? Mandated. Ordered. Commanded. “In order to preserve public safety.”

I would say there is a chance, given, again, the example of China, the ice-breaker.

And, as I’ve pointed out many times, these so-called epidemics have been used, for decades, to tune up the population to the need for ALL vaccines for all diseases. It’s called operant conditioning.

“You have no choice. You can’t opt out. The situation is too dangerous.”

Officials say that about one vaccine in an “epidemic” situation; they can then say that about all vaccines.

Realistically, any US president’s advisors would tell him that mandating an emergency coronavirus vaccine for the whole country would present a logistical nightmare. So they’d suggest, “We can try a mandate, only we don’t enforce it everywhere. We use certain examples of harsh control in, say, the most dangerous area, where the virus has spread. A town, a city, maybe even a state. And make sure everyone in that area gets the vaccine. Let’s try that for starters. Let’s see how the enforcement end looks. How hard are we going to come down on people if they refuse? Meanwhile, outlawing big public gatherings is an essential step. You can do that. No crowds permitted in certain cases. We work with state and local authorities, to make it look like ‘the people’ are represented. Go for the ‘share and care’ stuff. We love all our people and want to protect them…”

Such a strategy could be stretched out for months. It would be allowed to peter out…but certain features would stay in place. For instance, stepped up police and military presence in cities. Not to enforce vaccination, but to extend basic control over the population.

Meanwhile, state legislatures would feel more confident, despite pushback, in enacting mandatory vaccination laws for all diseases. Using terms like “outbreaks” and “spread” and “protection” more frequently than they’re used now, states would “do their duty” to keep citizens safe.

Freedom? Free choice? Those ideas would be channeled more quickly into drainpipes of the past. Safety, protection, and security would vault even higher on the political scoreboard.

If you’re beginning to see this is as a CONTROL op, you’re right. It always was. Setting aside the obvious workable medical solutions to specific problems, such as repair of the body in emergency crisis situations, the highest echelon of the medical cartel is all about control. And its use of demonstrably toxic drugs and vaccines are the forward edge of covert warfare.

China is showing the world how to force the war on millions of people at once.

In doing so, it’s borrowing strategies from the West: how to pump up an unproven epidemic through medical disinformation.

That’s a potent marriage: massive top-down force, and medical propaganda.

Freedom to dissent and opt out, along many lines, is more important than ever.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

One Pager

By Anna Von Reitz

Often, especially from military men, I have encountered the request that I sit down and “put it all on one page” — and I have frankly been unable to do it. Until now.  My friend, Jeff, kept pulling on my sleeve and working away on his attempts to do it “on one page” until…. well…. if you believe you can do it, no matter how impossible it seems…. and Jeff believed. 

So here it is.  Our Government summarized on one page so everyone can see it for themselves—- and see how the names are set up, and see what’s missing. I still can’t quite believe that we managed to crank down the history and the structures to this one measly page, but…. if you study it, you will have a good firm picture of how the American Government of, for, and by the people is separate from and stands above the Federal Subcontractors that are supposed to be here providing us with good faith service according to the Constitution(s).

You will also have a good view of how they have used the incomplete Post-Civil War Reconstruction of the Confederation as an excuse to usurp against our government, to make false assumptions about our government, to mis-inform and mis-identify us and others, and to evade their responsibilities to us under the Constitutions.

If you are an American born on the land and soil of this country, and not presently an employee or dependent of the U.S. Military or the Federal Civil Service — your government is at the top of the page: The United States, The United States of America, and The States of America. 

If you are a U.S. Citizen or Citizen of the United States, your incorporated government services organizations are at the bottom of the page. 

Now, if it makes sense to you that the Employers get to tell the Employees what to do and how to do it and to set the priorities — you are on our side of the issues. 

If you think that your Employees should have the right to dictate your life and tell you what services they are going to provide and how much they are going to charge you — then you are on the other side of the fence.

Share this little One Pager being published on my website: and at with your friends and family and co-workers and school teachers and town mayors and Congressional Delegations.

Share it with every American you know so that they get a bird’s eye view of what is wrong with this country and can put their thumbs and forefingers on it.

Hint: its there on the top right where it says, “The State of _____ Courts (Missing)” and again at the lower left side of the page, where it says: “Missing since 1860”)

There’s a whole missing link in our government system, like a hole in the middle of your favorite pair of blue jeans.  Unscrupulous parties have been using this as a means to subject Americans to foreign laws, and to steal trillions of dollars from our economy. 

Time to wake up and smell the java, restore the fully functioning government we are owed, and put an end to the usurpation and theft and dis-service that has gone on here. 


Get busy.  Make the decision to exercise your right to self-govern.  Declare your political status as an American.  Join your State Assembly.  Rebuild your American Confederation of States.  Fill the gaps. Claim your exemptions. Make the corrections.

It’s your world, and your government. 


See this article and over 2200 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here. 

6 Food preservatives with negative side effects and how to avoid them

(Natural News) On paper, food preservatives sound incredibly beneficial. Various food products can last much longer in your fridge and pantry thanks to these chemicals. But did you know that certain food preservatives are linked to harmful side effects such as headaches, cell death and heart disease? Food preservatives are bad news When you take a…

Kp Note(2) 1-27-19… “More about the Kobe / Illuminati connections” (DailyMotion “Kobe Bryant Illuminati commercial, ties to Satan exposed”)

Related to the prior Kp blog post, some may wish to view this video about the Illuminati / sports figures connections. Does this apply to Kobe Bryant? Sure looks like it.

All I’ll add here about this is, “Stay in the Light, baby… No matter what, no matter who”.

Kobe Bryant Illuminati commercial, ties to Satan exposed

It’s impossible to reach sports fans who are in a pure Satanic trance. Sports fans live vicariously through their favorite athletes. Kobe Bryant is one of those rare athletes that spawns a legion of followers who live their life in a fairy tale land where Kobe Bryant is their god. Don’t tell me I haven’t tried to warn you. Kobe Bryant Illuminati commercial, ties to Satan exposed.

“The Chinese virus is spreading”—deception and false news

by Jon Rappoport

January 27, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Most people are accepting the news that the Chinese coronavirus is spreading across China and the world. They don’t understand ground-level facts.

First of all, in every so-called epidemic, diagnoses of patients are eventually made by simple observation. The patient has typical flu symptoms? Fever, cough, fatigue, weakness, respiratory problems? He lives or works in an area where the epidemic has been reported? Boom, tell the patient he has the epidemic disease. Obviously, this is absurd. But it happens. And then you hear or read, “Today, three more people were found to be infected with the virus in (insert name of city).”

If a patient is actually tested, before a diagnosis is made, the most prevalent method is the antibody test. It’s fast. But there is a problem—a major problem. A positive test means the patient’s immune system has come in contact with the virus. Before 1984, this was generally interpreted as a good sign for the patient: his immune system responded well and defeated the virus. But then the science was turned upside down. Suddenly, a positive test meant the patient had a disease. Therefore, huge numbers of people were falsely told they were in danger. During times of hysteria, they became “new cases” of some purported epidemic. They were cited on the news to bolster the idea that the “the virus was spreading.” One more point: antibody tests are known to cross-react. This means: some irrelevant fact about the patient makes the test falsely read “positive for a virus.” He drank wine the night before the test. He has a cold. Etc.

In very few cases, a patient might be tested with a method called PCR. In simple terms, this test takes a tissue sample from the patient—a tiny, tiny piece of something that might be a virus…but it’s much too small to be observed and identified. To overcome this problem, the PCR test amplifies that tiny fragment many, many times—like blowing up a photograph. If the test overcomes several challenges and is done correctly, researchers and doctors might be able to infer that the patient has the virus. BUT the test would reveal nothing about HOW MUCH of the virus he has. And why is that important? Because two or three little particles of virus floating around in the patient’s body mean nothing. In order to cause disease, there would have to be millions and millions of a virus in the patient’s body. However, that obvious fact is ignored. A patient with a positive PCR test is added to the list of epidemic cases—and the news reports, “Today, four more infected people were found in Alaska, leading experts to state the epidemic is spreading unchecked across the world…”

As you can see, these major blunders and false interpretations will result in news about “the spreading epidemic.”

I should also mention low-level security personnel, police, and soldiers, in airports and other transportation centers, waving wands at people to see if their temperature is elevated—signifying they might be “carrying the virus.” These “tests” are about as reliable as randomly pointing to a figure in a photo of a crowd and saying, “He was the one who just robbed the bank, arrest him.”

Referring to Wuhan, called the center of the epidemic in China, photos of people jamming hospital waiting rooms are cited as “evidence” of the spreading virus and epidemic. This is preposterous. Many of these people, experiencing a few typical flu symptoms, have been brainwashed by public announcements into believing they have the “epidemic virus.” And then, Wuhan has highly dangerous levels of air pollution. Wuhan is notorious for polluting smog. Last summer, thousands of people in the city showed up on the streets protesting the air quality and a newly planned waste incinerator they believed would cause even more harmful smog. This pollution causes lung problems—cited as a symptom of the “coronavirus epidemic.”

Keep these issues in mind when people automatically claim “the virus and the epidemic are spreading.”

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Are Mandatory Vaccines Coming to Your State? Feds & Big Pharma Push to Force States to Mandate ALL CDC Recommended Vaccines

Comparison of doctor and soldier’s profession outlook. Military man wearing khaki uniform, Kalashnikov automatic machine. Doctor wearing white medical gown, blue gloves and mask, having syringe.

Is a Bill Requiring Your Children to Get Every CDC Recommended Vaccination Coming to Your State?

by Barbara Loe Fisher,

As vaccine-related bills are being introduced into state legislatures this month, a bill (HB1090) has been proposed in the Virginia legislature to require school children to receive every dose of all current and future vaccines added to the recommended childhood vaccine schedule by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) appointed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

It removes legal authority from the state Board of Health to make recommendations to the General Assembly, the Joint Commission on Health Care and the Governor for revision of the list of vaccines required for school children and effectively transfers that authority to an unelected federal advisory committee.

In what is a very transparent power grab by federal government officials that is sure to make pharmaceutical company stockholders smile, this type of proposed legislation could be coming soon to your state, too.

Here is why automatically codifying federal vaccine use recommendations into state law threatens the integrity of representative government in our constitutional republic and is a threat to the public health and civil and human rights.

Violation of Historic Separation of Federal and State Powers.

State legislators voting to enact laws, which automatically codify federal ACIP recommendations into state law, are abdicating responsibility and accountability for exercising power authorized by the U.S. Constitution by handing that power over to unelected members of a federal government advisory committee.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution recognized it was important to balance the powers of the federal and state governments,1 and to include a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individuals natural rights and civil liberties that limit the power of both federal and state governments.2 Anything not defined in the U.S. Constitution as a federal activity defaults to the states.3 4

Historically, the legal authority to create public health laws to control infectious disease transmission among residents living in each state has belonged to state legislatures, health departments and Boards of Health, while the legal authority to protect the U.S. population from infectious diseases brought into the country by people crossing national borders or state borders belongs to the federal government.5 6

In 1905, the US Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional authority of state legislatures to mandate that citizens receive smallpox vaccinations during epidemics. The Court warned states vaccine laws should not be implemented in way that they become “cruel and inhuman to the last degree” for individuals and “lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.”7 8

Relinquishing power to the federal government that is reserved to the states and eliminating necessary checks and balances on federal power, betrays democratic principles foundational to the representative government of our constitutional republic.

Cuts Citizens Out of the Law-Making Process

Transferring authority to mandate vaccines from duly elected members of a state legislature to an unelected federal government advisory committee poses a risk to the health and welfare of children and usurps the right of Americans to publicly participate in the law making process through their elected representatives.

CDC appointed members of ACIP, who can have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, and government health officials engaging in public-private partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry,9 have no legal responsibility or accountability for what happens to the health of a child who is harmed by a state mandated vaccine.10 11 State legislatures, state health departments and Boards of Health are in a more knowledgeable position than the federal government to effectively address public health issues in the states.

Writes Pharma A Blank Check

Giving a federal agency blanket legal authority to automatically mandate every vaccine recommended by the CDC for use by all children attending daycare and school in every state will certainly financially benefit pharmaceutical companies but will not equally benefit citizens.

In 1980, the cost to “fully” vaccinate a child in a private doctor’s office according to CDC recommendations was $17 12 and that cost is now a staggering $3,000.13 There is no limit on future costs to vaccinate a child with every new vaccine licensed by the FDA and recommended for all children by the CDC.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) list 264 vaccines in active development by drug companies, including 137 infectious disease vaccines.14 The World Health Organization (WHO), with taxpayer funding by the CDC,15 is fast tracking development of 13 vaccines by multi-national pharmaceutical corporations.16

Most of these vaccines, as well as many others, will be recommended by ACIP for use by all children, including vaccines for HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria, Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Group A Streptococcus, Group B Streptococcus, Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV), E-coli; Shigella, Gonorrhea, Chikungunya and Salmonella.

The global vaccine market was valued at $28 billion in 2016 and is projected to become between $48 billion and $93 billion by 2025.17 Market forecasters predict North America will dominate the US vaccine market that “is expected to rise at a significant pace” due to “the presence of several key manufacturers in the region” and “favorable government policies for manufacturing and sales of vaccines.”18

Public-private business partnerships between the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry guarantee that most vaccines being developed by drug companies will be licensed and recommended for use by children and adults by the government.19

U.S. vaccine manufacturers Merck & Co. (rotavirus, HPV, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, varicella zoster (chickenpox), MMR, MMRV, pneumococcal vaccines) and Pfizer (pneumococcal, meningococcal B vaccines), as well as the UK pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, meningococcal, DTaP, DT, Tdap, HIB; polio vaccines) and France’s Sanofi Pasteur (influenza, meningococcal, DTaP, DT, Tdap, HIB, polio vaccines)20 will reap significant profits if states enact laws automatically mandating that children get every dose of every existing and new vaccine without deliberation by state health departments, Boards of Health or public hearings in the legislature providing input from residents impacted by vaccine mandates.

Creates Unfunded Mandates

Many states are already undergoing significant budget challenges. A law that automatically adds all ACIP recommended vaccinations to school requirements for children creates an unfunded mandate that increases the state’s health care costs at the expense of other programs and services.

Ignores Vaccine Risks and Rewards Liability-Free Vaccine Manufacturers

Vaccines are commercial pharmaceutical products carrying risks that can be greater for some individuals for genetic, epigenetic and other biological or environmental reasons but doctors cannot reliably predict who will be harmed.21

There are long standing vaccine safety knowledge gaps detailed by the Institute of Medicine in more than 20 years of published studies on vaccine safety issues,22 23 including lack of studies scientifically evaluating the safety of the birth to six year old vaccine schedule recommended by the CDC.24 25

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created a federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for children injured by CDC-recommended vaccines. The VICP has awarded more than $4 billion to vaccine victims since 1988, although two out of three vaccine injured plaintiffs are turned away without financial support.26

The Act passed in 1986 gave vaccine manufacturers partial liability protection and did not shield doctors or other vaccine administrators from civil liability when vaccines cause harm.

However, subsequent amendments and rule making changes by the federal government between 1987 and 2016 shielded vaccine providers from liability and substantially weakened the Act’s safety and compensation provisions.27

Since 2011 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that FDA licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,”28 pharmaceutical corporations have no civil liability for harm caused by vaccines mandated by state governments for children to attend daycare and school.29

Creates an Uncontrolled Scientific Experiment on School Children

The CDC acknowledges that clinical trials of new vaccines conducted by drug companies seeking licenses for new vaccines often contain too few participants followed up for limited time periods, who may not closely represent the U.S. population in terms of demographics, race and ethnicity.30

Some new vaccines licensed by the FDA have been proven to be too reactive and have been withdrawn from the market within a few years of licensure after persistent reports of vaccine-related brain and immune system damage and death.31 32

The true effectiveness of new vaccines following licensure is also not certain for years or even decades. Vaccinated persons can get infected with and transmit infectious diseases, often without showing symptoms or being diagnosed and reported.33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

For example, the Centers for Disease Control acknowledged in 2019 that vaccinated children can still get pertussis (whooping cough) because the B. pertussis microbe has genetically mutated and the current vaccines do not contain all strains. 41

Very few states have mandated that school children get HPV or annual influenza vaccinations, which are recommended for all children by the ACIP.

However, if states codify ACIP recommendations into law, children attending daycare and school would be required to receive the flu shot every year, despite the CDC reporting that the influenza vaccine was effective less than 50% of the time over the last 15 years.42 HPV vaccinations would be required, despite the fact that HPV cannot be transmitted in a school setting.43

Citizens in every state, along with state health departments and Boards of Health, should have an opportunity to review the scientific evidence when considering the benefits and risks of federally recommended vaccines for children and work with duly elected legislators to make informed decisions about whether a particular vaccine should be included in public health laws as a requirement for school attendance.

Endangers Medically Fragile Children

This type of proposed legislation could put more immune compromised and medically fragile students at risk of suffering vaccine reactions or contracting vaccine strain infections if all current and future vaccinations recommended by the federal government for children are automatically mandated for children to attend daycare and school in the states.

The ACIP has eliminated almost all contraindications to vaccination44 and the CDC now directs doctors to give inactivated vaccines and most live virus vaccines to all children, regardless of whether they are severely immune compromised or have suffered previous vaccine reactions.45 46 47

Depending upon the vaccine and an individual’s health at the time of vaccination, children and adults who have recently received live virus vaccines, such as varicella zoster,48 influenza49 and measles,50 shed vaccine strain virus in body fluids for different amounts of time. Immune compromised individuals receiving live virus vaccines often shed vaccine strain virus for longer periods of time.51 52 53

Additionally, vaccine strain infections can be misdiagnosed as wild type infections,54 which can result in mischaracterization of the true nature of reported outbreaks of disease.

For the past several decades, states have had to create more and more special education classrooms to meet the needs of disabled and chronically ill students.55 56

Children already disabled by vaccine reactions and medically fragile children will be at increased risk for vaccine injury. Special education costs could increase significantly in states if every ACIP recommended vaccine is required for every child to attend daycare and school in every state.

Contradicts Supreme Court Decisions on Parental Rights and Violates Human Rights

There is a long-standing principle in U.S. law that parents have a legal right to raise their children without undue adverse interference by the State.

In 1979, the Supreme Court stated that,

deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition, is the belief that the parental role implies a substantial measure of authority over one’s children. Indeed, “constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents’ claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society.”57

The human right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to medical risk taking is central to the ethical practice of medicine and implementation of public health laws.58

Those rights can be protected if citizens are able to work with their elected representatives to ensure they are not stripped for public health laws.

The lucrative public private partnership between multi-national pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies that develop and regulate vaccines and make national vaccine policy are driving the mandatory vaccination lobby to persuade state legislators to give up their constitutional authority and ethical responsibility for creating state public health laws with the consent of those they govern.

State legislatures that transfer constitutional authority to mandate vaccines to unelected members of a federal agency committee are betraying foundational principles of representative government.

Monitoring Proposed Legislation In Your State

Virginia HB1090 is scheduled to be heard in a House health committee on Tuesday, Jan. 21 at 4 pm. For details and updates on that bill and other vaccine-related bills that have been introduced in state legislatures this year, become a user of and access the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal.