More on Avoiding Vaccination


In 1982, an hour-long television documentary, "DPT: Vaccine Roulette," was shown to the public. The documentary showed children who had been permanently brain damaged following DPT vaccinations. Their little bodies were twisted, contorted. Anguished parents were standing nearby.

"Many children have suffered horrible and permanent side effects from this vaccine."—Lea Thompson, investigative reporter, TV show, Today, April 20, 1982.

But, during the television documentary, officials were also interviewed who gave the standard statements urging the importance of continued vaccination:

"The benefits of the vaccine, in my view, far outweigh the risks."—Edward Mortimer, M.D., of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ibid.

"Much more is to be gained by immunizing the children with the current vaccines with its limitations, than by allowing our children to be exposed to contracting Pertussis."—John Robbins, Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Biologics, Ibid.

But, elsewhere on that same documentary, Dr. Robbins made this remarkable statement:

"I think if you as a parent brought your child to a doctor for a DPT shot and the doctor said to you initially, ‘Well, I have to tell you that some children who get this vaccine get brain damaged, there’s no question as to what your reaction would be. As a responsible parent you would say, I wish not to take this vaccine."—Ibid.

Sir Graham S. Wilson, M.D., knew a lot about the subject of vaccination, since he formerly had been director of the British Public Health Laboratory Services. He said this:

"The risks attendant on the use of vaccines and sera (plural of serum) are not as well recognized as they should be. Indeed, our knowledge of them is still too small and the incomplete knowledge we have is not widely disseminated . . The late Dr. J. Hutchinson of the [U.K.] Ministry of Health collected records of fatal immunological accidents during the war years and was kind enough to show them to us. We were surprised to learn of the large number of persons in the civil and military populations that died apparently as the result of attempted immunization against some disease or other. Yet only a few of these are referred to in the medical journals.

"When one considers that Dr. Hutchinson’s records covered only four or five years and were limited to Great Britain, and that in other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australia, probably much the same proportion of accidents were occurring—and further that such accidents have been going on for sixty or seventy years—one realizes that a very small proportion can ever have been described in the medical literature of the world."—Sir S.G. Graham, M.D., quoted in The Hazards of Immunizations, 1967.

An Australian news magazine (The Age, April 12, 1975) interviewed Dr. Ronald Penny, associate professor of medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney. In the interview, Penny stated that a number of children were regularly harmed or killed by vaccinations, and that they were most likely to be children who had deficiencies in their immune systems.

According to Dr. Penny, measles, rubella, and polio inoculations were the most dangerous because they involved "live" viruses. He explained that weakened viruses are in the vaccines; but, placed in a person with a weak immune system, they are as dangerous as a vigorous set of germs placed in a healthy person.

According to Sir Graham Wilson, former director of Public Health Laboratory Services of England, all it takes to get a disease in a vaccine—is to get yourself run down enough before you receive the vaccination:

"When a vaccine is injected into the tissues during the incubation period of a disease or during the course of a latent infection, it may bring on an acute attack of the disease. That is to say, the incubation period is shortened, or a latent infection that might have given rise to no manifest illness is converted into a clinical attack. The two diseases in which this so-called provocation effect has been most studied are typhoid fever and poliomyelitis, but evidence exists to show that it may be operative in other diseases such as tuberculosis and rickettsial infections.

"Numerous factors such as exposure to cold and wet, excessive fatigue, overindulgence of various sorts and certain chemo-therapeutic agents, are credited with playing a similar role by lowering the resistance of the host to the causative bacterium or virus in question. Certain vaccines appear to have a similar effect, though probably more specific."—Sir Graham Wilson, M.D., The Hazards of Health, 1967.

The result, according to Sir Wilson, is a "provocation disease"—a disease you contracted from the vaccine injected to prevent you from getting it! In a letter to the British Medical Journal, Rosemary Fox, secretary of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, said this:

"Two years ago, we started to collect details from parents of serious reactions, suffered by their children to immunizations of all kinds. In 65% of the cases referred to by us, reactions followed ‘triple’ vaccinations (tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis). The children in this group total 182 to date; all are severely brain damaged, some are also paralyzed, and 5 have died during the past 18 months. Approximately 605 of reactions (major convulsions, intense screaming, collapse, etc.) occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 80% within 3 days, and all within 12 days. During the period 1969-1974, when 64 deaths resulted from whooping cough, 56 cases of severe brain damage followed vaccination.

"These cases have been referred to the DHSS (British Department of Health and Social Services over the past two years. As the figures steadily increased and we discovered that there were doubts about the safety of whooping cough vaccines, we asked the DHSS if current vaccines were available . . The department insists, however, that the incidence of severe reactions to whooping cough vaccines is low and states that there are no plans to study our cases at present." —Rosemary Fox, letter to the British Medical Journal, dated February 21, 1976.

The plan under consideration at the present time is for the federal government to fund the cost of giving wide-spectrum vaccinations to every child in the nation. Those injections will, of course, be given on a mandatory basis.

At the 1982 Forum of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the adoption of the following resolution was urged by a concerned member:

"The AAP [will] make available in clear, concise language information which a reasonable parent would want to know about the benefits and risks of routine immunizations, the risks of vaccine preventable diseases and the management of common adverse reactions to immunizations."—Resolution presented to American Academy of Pediatrics, 1982 Forum.

After careful deliberation, the resolution was rejected. Therefore, parents continue to not be told of the risks of vaccination. 

"Margaret Ann, the only daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Gooding, of Wolsey, Essex, England, was pronounced a perfect baby by the doctor when she was born. This beautiful and healthy infant was vaccinated at the age of 4 months. The first two injections didn’t take, so a third was given, after which inflammation of the brain developed within 5 days. She was taken to the hospital where she remained for many weeks. At the age of 13 months she was blind and could not learn to walk. She also developed digestive disturbances and convulsions."—E. McBean, The Poisoned Needle, p. 78.

The fact stands out—loud and clear—that immunizations are doing nothing to reduce disease. According to Volume 2 of World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-1974, there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases "in most ‘developing’ countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries. It appears that generally improved conditions of sanitation are largely responsible for preventing ‘infectious’ diseases.

"The biologist, Rene Dubos, said the improvement was due to better sanitation and public water supplies. Other scientists have said it was due to improved personal hygiene, better food distribution, and the eating of fresh fruit and vegetables (cf., among others, W.J. McCormick, M.D., The Changing Incidence and Mortality of Infectious Disease in Relation to Changed Trends in Nutrition, Medical Record, September 1947). Jonathan Miller, M.D., believes the reduced death rate is due to better nutrition, and improved ventilation and drainage (interview on Dick Cavett Show, February 4, 1981). Yet, in spite of these facts, that which appears to be a massive cover-up of facts continues. Why then does the vaccination fetish persist? We must find the answer in economics—in the billion-dollar serum industry."—Cash Asher, Bacteria, Inc., 1949, p. 42.

Any business which controls such large sums of money, is in a position to influence legislation—in order to protect its sales. Dr. Milton Silverman, a University of California pharmacologist, said the pharmaceutical industry "is now grossing sales in the tens of billions of dollars a year" (quoted in television documentary, "Pesticides and Pills," on Public Television, in the fall of 1981).

In Australia, Glen Dettman, Ph.D., and Archie Kalokerinos, M.D., had seen all too well the terrible results accruing year after year from vaccinations. So they teamed up and began a nationwide campaign to stop vaccinations. They appeared on television and radio talk shows, wrote articles, gave interviews, and wrote a book. They said this:

"Even the World Health Organization has conceded that the best vaccine against common infectious diseases is an adequate diet. Despite this, they made it perfectly clear to us that they still intended to promote mass immunization campaigns. Do we take this as an admission that we cannot or do not wish to provide an adequate diet? More likely it would seem, there is no profit in the constituents of an adequate diet for the pharmaceutical companies."—A. Kalokerinos and G. Dettman, "A Supportive Submission," The Dangers of Immunization, Biological Research Institute, Australia, 1979, p. 68.

"Remaining unimmunized for childhood diseases is a risk no child should face. Health experts warn that unless more young children are immunized, widespread epidemics could take place again."—Virginia State Department of Health folder.

"Expanded immunization, using newly improved vaccines . . will prevent the six main immunizable diseases from killing an estimated 5 million children a year and disabling 5 million more."—James Grant, executive director of UNICEF, In Shift in the wind, 18, May 1984, p. 7.

"Any person who dies within 15 minutes to a day after taking the vaccine could be suffering from a personal sensitivity, an allergy of the vaccine which is unrelated to the ‘dead’ viruses therein, most researchers concede."—Official statement regarding a swine flue vaccine, quoted in Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 58.

The British Medical Journal mentioned that multiple sclerosis can be caused by one or the other of seven different vaccines!

"German authors have described the apparent provocation of multiple sclerosis by . . vaccination against smallpox, typhoid, tetanus, polio, and tuberculosis and after injections of antidiphtheria serum. Zintchenko (1965) reported 12 patients in whom multiple sclerosis first became evident after a course of anti-rabies vaccinations."—British Medical Journal, October 22, 1967.

Actually, mass vaccine programs are medically unethical:

"Current mass vaccine programs represent two major departures from the ethics and traditions of medical practice: (a) The programs diverge from the time-honored tradition that all treatments should be individualized, particularly when dealing with substances which carry the potential for adverse side effects. (b) Vaccines have been made compulsory."—Harold E. Buttram, M.D., and John C. Hoffman, Vaccinations and Immune Malfunction, 1987, p. 45.

Yet mass vaccinations are also crucial to the ongoing success, not of conquering disease, but getting people inoculated. Without the coercion aspect, vaccinations would disappear.

"The principle of compulsory mass medication is an established and accepted fact in American society today. Its cornerstone rests upon the compulsory mass vaccination programs which are being enforced with ever greater stringency throughout the country. The enforcement of these programs is taking place in a number of areas in our society, but its primary impact is on our children, who are required to take their quota of vaccines before acceptance and admission into school, the attendance of which is mandated."—Ibid.

"One wonders why the vaccine-damaged children issue is soft-pedaled—if it isn’t an issue, why have we in Australia, an Association for the Prevention of Vaccine-Damaged Children, and in the U.K., the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children?"—Editorial, Australasian Nurses Journal, June 1978.

"The best vaccine against common infectious diseases is an adequate diet."—Statement by the World Health Organization, quoted in H.E. Buttram, M.D., and J.C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization Trio, p. 10.

"The children, kicking and screaming, were taken away from the parents and given smallpox vaccinations."—"Opposing Compulsory Immunizations," Health Freedom News, April 1985, p. 21.

"No shots, no school. Students who can’t prove they have been immunized against contagious childhood diseases shouldn’t expect to start school Monday."—Lisa Hogberg, "No Shots, No School," Virginia Beach Beacon, August 28, 1983.

"My name is Ann Andrex. I am from Mount Rainier, Maryland, and I am not associated with any of the groups here. I am a parent of a two-year-old and expecting another child soon. My two-year-old has received all legally required vaccinations to attend nursery school, but I feel it is wrong to force parents to have children vaccinated to attend school. There are too many unknowns about the threats from the effects of the vaccination compared to the threat of contracting and suffering through the various diseases, especially in the case of pertussis, and it is also wrong to legally mandate vaccinations when there are no legally mandated programs of keeping track of the vaccination effects by private as well as public M.D.s

"There should be freely available information on the disease and on the vaccinations so parents can make informed decisions. Instead of current scientific studies and statistics, today’s parents have legal requirements based on no documented information upon which to base their personal decisions about their children’s future health and health risks, and I just wanted—maybe it is out of place here, but I wanted to say that."—Ann Andrex, Open Meeting on Pertussis and Pertussis Vaccines, Rockville, MD, April 26, 1983.

Citizens in a given state can unite their efforts to fight compulsory vaccinations. In Wisconsin, they did just that. The people formed Citizens for Free Choice in Immunization and worked until, in 1980, they clarified the Wisconsin State statute that discusses exemptions from mandated vaccination. They had included into it a statement that persons who have a decided conviction against a vaccination procedure can choose not to receive it, and can also keep their children from receiving it. These modified provisions were signed into Wisconsin law on May 7, 1980 (1979 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 767), and now can be found in the Wisconsin State Statute (Section 140.05(16)).

"Since God placed the welfare of the children in the hands of the parents or guardians, it is only they who should have the right to make the final decision, since it is they who must assume full responsibility for the consequences."—Gerald E. Poesnecker, N.D., D.C., "No Shots, No School?" For You, Naturally, January 1983.

"Even in those states [requiring mandatory immunizations], you may be able to persuade your pediatrician to eliminate the pertussis component from the DPT vaccine. This immunization is the subject of so much controversy that many doctors are becoming nervous about giving it, fearing malpractice suits. They should be nervous, because in a Chicago case a child damaged by the pertussis inoculation received a $5.5 million settlement award."—Robert Mendelsohn, How to Raise a Healthy Child, p. 210.


In 1962 a compulsory immunization bill was before Congress which, if enacted, would have required vaccination of every person in America.

"It is hard to convince the public that something is good. Consequently, the best way to push forward a new program is to decide on what you think the best decision is and not to question it thereafter, and further, not to raise questions before the public or expose the public to open discussion of the issues."—Paul Meier, M.D., speaking on a panel before a Congressional hearing on Intensive Immunization Programs, 1962.

But the compulsory immunization bill was defeated by the efforts of such groups as the National Health Federation, the Christian Scientists, the Natural Hygienists, and others. So the organizations, determined to sell vaccines in large quantities, focused on getting one state after another to mandate immunization.

At the present time, all states have some type of compulsory immunization law requiring children to be immunized against certain childhood diseases: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, and polio. Failure to comply with the law can prevent your child from attending school and expose you to possible criminal penalties.

In recent years, there has been a trend toward greater strictness in the enforcement of childhood vaccination programs by schools. Legislatures in all fifty states have passed laws requiring vaccinations for admission to schools, although most states have provided exemptions.

For example, a tougher new vaccination law went into effect in Virginia in 1983, which required private schools and day care centers to also comply, and mandated that records be checked for exact dates of immunizations. Each school principal was told he would be fined $10,000 if he admitted even one student without vaccination papers.

More and more colleges are requiring new students to be fully vaccinated before entrance. In 1991, the federal government was considering adding a vaccination requirement for anyone applying for welfare or food stamps (New York Times, March 17, 1991).

But the battle is being fought the most vigorously at the elementary school level. Physicians, schools, and local and state health departments tell parents that state laws and school regulations absolutely require that the children be vaccinated, in order to attend school. In the process, these authorities convey the distinct impression that vaccination is mandatory and there are no exceptions. Why the battle? Parents recognize their children are young and lack the robust strength of a 20-year-old. They also may have heard something about the fact that live disease viruses are in those vaccines. So they try to avoid the vaccinations. Yet their concerns are met with threats of court hearings and the loss of their children.

But is it true that vaccinations are mandatory "with no exceptions"? In reality, each state provides waivers permitting parents to object to mandated vaccines for one or more of the following reasons: medical, religious, personal, parental objection, etc.

"Legal requirements concerning immunization vary from state to state. All fifty states have compulsory vaccination laws, though the specific requirements differ. This means that parents who decide not to give the vaccines to their children will need to seek a legal exemption. All fifty states also have a medical exemption."—Randall Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 20.


All fifty states have a medical exemption. All states, except West Virginia and Mississippi have legal exemptions from vaccination on the basis of the parents’ religious beliefs. Twenty-two states have the option of personal or philosophical belief exemptions—more on that below.

Children cannot be refused admission to public schools if their parents have a legal exemption. (Private schools are able to set their own requirements for admission. Day care centers, preschools, nursery schools and private elementary schools can refuse admission to any child for any reason they choose. Yet, although they do not need to, most of them go along with the recommendations of their state health department.)

"Refusal to admit a child on the basis of ‘inadequate’ immunization could create a legal liability for a private school in a state where religious or philosophical exemptions exist. That is, parents could take a school to court."—Randall Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 21.

Where should parents begin, when confronted with such a situation? The first thing to be done is to read the law. Specifically, what is the wording of the compulsory vaccination law in your state? (For information on how to get that data, see "Sources of information," later in this chapter.)

Most states have medical and religious exemptions. Some also have personal conviction (belief) exemptions.

1 - For the medical exemption, you must provide medical reasons why you or your child should not be vaccinated. The child can be exempted if the parents can obtain a written statement or certificate of waiver from a physician licensed in that state, stating that the vaccine would be harmful to the child’s health. But doctors generally fear to cooperate, lest they get in trouble with their state licensing boards. So such statements are not often issued.

In this letter, it is generally necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year, and they must be renewed each fall.

There are two medical reasons which, on medical grounds, are the most valid: (1) "The fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child," and (2) "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized; and, since no one but the physician and parent will be held responsible for such consequences, it is their responsibility to protect the child.

Some states require that the letter be signed by an M.D. or D.O.; but, if courteously and properly written, some allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor.

So although medical exemptions are valid, when written to fit each state law, they usually must be renewed yearly. That latter point is a major weakness to medical exemptions, even when they can be obtained.

2 - The religious exemption is generally better than a medical one. But often it is not satisfied by your merely stating that you are religious or have personal religious beliefs. You must show evidence that you have membership in a church which does not believe in vaccinations. There are not many such churches around. (The only recognized denomination which is legally opposed to vaccination is the Christian Science Church. Many years ago, they took the matter to court and obtained a legal ruling of exemption. Other denominations could have done the same, but they did not do so.)

In some states, the parent or guardian need only sign a notarized affidavit stating that immunizations conflict with the parent’s (or child’s) religious beliefs, in order to qualify for the religious exemption. While, in other states, an official letter from a church authority is required before exemption. In still others, it is only necessary to submit a notarized letter that the individual adheres to religious tenets which hold vaccination to be against God’s laws.

"Recent legal precedents have established that religious belief may be personal, and parents need not be associated with a religious institution opposed to vaccination."—Randall Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 20.

3 - A third exemption is exemption due to personal conviction (or personal belief). You are personally convinced that you or your loved one should not be vaccinated. This, obviously, is a much better exemption, and one which is easier for the court to accept. If your state has the personal belief exemption, simply write on a piece of paper that immunizations are contrary to your belief.

By the early 1990s, twenty-two states had liberal exemptions based on "conscience, parental objection, personal beliefs, philosophical, or other objections." These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. However, it’s possible that, when you read this, changes might have been made and, more or less, states have those exemptions.

According to Carol Horowitz, there is yet another category: that of conscientious objector status. In a 1983 magazine article she said, "It is possible for parents to file as conscientious objectors with the state health department, although this choice is not advertised" or widely known. She says that several people she knows who are conscientious objectors state that it is their "God-given right to refuse to immunize my child." Any lesser statement, she says, is legally unacceptable. You cannot, for example, say that you have read 15 articles in newspapers and 8 articles in medical journals, or that you have seen some documentary on television. It must be a personal, solid conviction, not an acquaintance with hearsay (Carol Horowitz, "Immunizations and Informed Consent," Mothering, Winter 1983, p. 38).


The general pattern is for county or state authorities to place heavy pressure on the parents to comply with the vaccination code as soon as possible. They are threatened with court action and the loss of their children. The parents are thrown into a panic. But the authorities are in their own state of panic. They must get the recalcitrant family to yield right away, lest others follow their example. Across the nation, there are to be found vaccine-damaged children and it is only by strong-arm, police-state tactics that the states can maintain their "compulsory vaccination laws."

"Other parents may be anxious about the effects of vaccines on their child, but they are [still] concerned that if enough people avoid the shot then the diseases will begin to reappear. The vaccines may have bad side effects, yet if I avoid them for my child then the vaccine campaign will not work for the general population. But this is a sacrificial philosophy. Risk the side effects in my child for the good of the whole society. The stakes of this game may be exceedingly high if the vaccines are capable of causing a covert encephalitis syndrome. If that is true, then we are trading one disease for another. This sacrifice is hardly worth the cost."—R. Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, pp. 87-88.

It is claimed that the parents are "neglecting their children" by not vaccinating them. Yet there is a sizeable amount of evidence of vaccine-caused damage—indicating they would be neglecting their responsibility to permit their children to be inoculated.

Another argument is that communities must require that all children be vaccinated "in order to protect the other children." Well, the "other children" are the ones who have been vaccinated; are they not already "immunized"—fully protected—against those particular diseases? If the vaccines offered true immunity, only the unvaccinated would become ill.

"If vaccination does what its advocates claim for it, the person who is vaccinated ought to be safe no matter whether anybody else is vaccinated or not."—Clarence Darrow, quoted in W. James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1987, p. 151.

"The State Health Commissioner presented overwhelming evidence that a voluntary immunization program would not be successful or worthwhile to maintain, and therefore he could not support our position (to relax the mandatory restriction in the state vaccination law). When I read that letter I couldn’t help thinking, ‘What an admission! So the program can’t stand on its own ‘merits’; it has to be forced.’ "—W. James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1987, p. 152.

One angry medical professional wrote this:

"The so-called compulsory vaccination laws are a complete travesty of the American Constitution and of God’s law of free will. Surprisingly, the Land of the Free is one of the few civilized countries that inflicts this dictatorial rule on its people. Countries like England, Ireland, West Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Spain did away with it long ago.

"I use the prefix ‘so-called’ in front of these laws because, while they are entitled ‘compulsory,’ they all have exclusions of which you can take advantage if you so desire. These exclusions were placed there not for your benefit but, like so much small-print in contracts, to protect the establishment. If a law were truly mandatory and without exclusions, the framers of that law and the executors thereof could be legally held responsible for all adverse consequences that might stem from its implementation.

"Since it is a well-known fact that all vaccines are potentially dangerous, no doctor, drug firm, or health official will ever accept this responsibility. Therefore, all laws have waivers or exclusions, and should your child be injured or killed by a vaccine, the officials will look at you with that bland smile they wear so well, and say, ‘Well, you should have exempted him if you thought there would be any trouble.’ Of course, they never tell you about these waivers ahead of time, for this does not fit in with their emphatic ‘No Shots, No School’ dogma.

"Nowhere, and at no time, in our great country has the government the right to give you or yours a ‘shot’ against your own will. If someone should attempt to do so, you have a prima facie (immediately obvious) case of ‘attempted assault with a deadly weapon,’ and I would let them know this if they try.

"Those in the establishment who would force their opinions and views down our throats (or rather, stick them into our arms) have two major weapons to use against you: your ignorance of your rights and their use of intimidation. Once you become informed on this matter you will be able to withstand this intimidation through the realization that these ‘servants of society’ are but ‘paper tigers’ who stand on very shaky legal ground.

"With the increasing proliferation of vaccines and strong efforts toward compulsory immunization on the one hand, and the possibility of a generation of immune-deficient, weakened Americans on the other, it behooves everyone in charge of children to investigate thoroughly the claims and counterclaims made concerning the immunization procedures.

"Since God placed the welfare of the children in the hands of the parents or guardians, it is only they who should have the right to make the final decision, since it is they who must assume full responsibility for the consequences."—Gerald E. Poesnecker, D.C., "No Shots, No School?" For You Naturally, January 1983, pp. 1-3.

Because of this obsession to force all children to be vaccinated, even in "free states" (the nine states listed earlier which have more liberal exemptions), attempts will be made to override or ignore the state statutes permitting those more enlightened exemptions. In Arizona, for example, parents were told "no shots, no school," and efforts were made to intimidate them into having their children vaccinated. Yet the exemption procedures were there—for those determined enough to use them.

"By definition, the enforcement of vaccine programs is a police action by the state. Police powers are necessary in certain areas of modern society, but are they appropriate with the vaccine programs?"—H.E. Buttram, M.D., and J.C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization Trio, 1987, p. 79.

But the pressure generally succeeds, as one public official said:

"A spokeswoman for the health department said . . one-half of one percent of the children eligible for vaccinations are granted exemptions on medical or religious grounds each year."—Virginia State county health department official, quoted in Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1987, p. 143.

A special method used with remarkable frequency in scattered locations to whip up business, frighten the public, fight anti-vaccination groups, and get more vaccinations is "the epidemic." When the public becomes apathetic or suspicious of vaccines, announcements are sent out that an epidemic is in progress.

In Placitas, New Mexico, not enough people were being vaccinated, so the local newspaper was told that a dangerous whooping cough (pertussis) epidemic was in progress. Headlines blared out the frightening message. But only three cases of whooping cough were discovered in the entire area—and all of them in children who had been vaccinated for whooping cough.

When one way does not work, it is time to try another. When television programs in the mid-1980s focused, for a change, on the dangers of pertussis vaccinations and said that it was they which were responsible for cases of whooping cough, the Maryland Health Department countered with the argument that the epidemic of pertussis was caused by the television shows (R.S. Mendelsohn, Risks of Immunizations, 1987, p. 34).



"Many of the vaccines have significant side effects. These can be separated into two groups: (a) immediate reactions, and (b) delayed reactions and permanent disabilities. Immediate reactions include fevers, allergic reactions and convulsions. With some vaccines, these can be quite severe. Delayed and permanent reactions include epilepsy, mental retardation, learning disabilities, and paralysis."—R. Neustaedter, O.M.D., The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 8.

When faced with required vaccination for your child, there are several alternatives. Here are three primary ones:

1 - You can go ahead and have your child vaccinated. Thousands of others have done this; you can also. Vaccinations are somewhat like Russian roulette: The parents never know if it will be their child which will be stricken down by the germs in the vaccine. Perhaps nothing will happen.

2 - You can move out of the state to one with more liberal exemption laws. This is a possibility rarely mentioned in books of this nature. Everyone is very concerned about winning the war against vaccination laws. But there is also the possibility that your own family might lose the war—and either your child will be forced to have the vaccination any way or it might be taken from you and placed in a foster home. Prayer is needed, not only mere determination.

If you do decide to flee, you might do well to pack and then leave in the night. An alternative is to have the mother leave with the children and go to another state. Most laws of this nature are not enforced on the same day that notification of the violation is served. Two or three days are generally given for compliance.

Keep in mind that, if one parent—or both parents—leaves with the children, the local authorities will try to find out where they are and then contact that state to go after them. Therefore, it would be best to have learned in advance which states are the safest to move to. Those will be the ones with the most relaxed regulations on the vaccination. In this way, the family can do some advance planning in case of trouble, which is always better than last-minute decisions. (See "Sources of Information" for a list of some states with more liberal vaccination exemptions. But, remember, the list might have changed by the time you have to make a decision, so get current information.)

In one instance, the mother refused to let the children be taken from their home school and placed in public school. But the father was wavering, unwilling to face the battle. So she left with them during the day while he was at work, merely telling him that she had gone with the children. When the judge learned of it, he ordered the man jailed until the children were returned to that state and placed in the public school. Then, by someone’s wise decision, the media was given the story. They spread it everywhere. In this instance, it produced such a public outcry, that the judge released the man. He then wound up his affairs, left the state, and rejoined the mother and children—who were in a state with liberal home school provisions.

3 - You can try to get a waiver, on the basis of an exemption stated in the state vaccination law. This will be easier to do if you are in one of the 22 states (listed above) with more liberal exemption laws.

If you decide to go this route, quickly obtain more information. You need to know your state law, and you would do well to contact one or more of the following sources.


In addition to those listed just below, an abundant supply of additional sources will be given later in this book.

1 - For further information on vaccine regulations in your state, you can call one or more of the following: your State or County Health Department; your State Board of Education; or your local school district Superintendent of Schools office. Request a copy of your state’s Immunization Laws. It will contain, in print, the requirements and exemptions.

2 - Still another source is the reference section of your local public library. Look in the State Statute Revised Law Book, under "Public Health Law" or "Communicable Disease" sections. You should there find the list of immunization requirements, followed by the exemptions. Usually one or two provisions will be listed—either on religious or medical grounds.

3 - You may call or write your state legislature representative and ask for a copy of the immunization law in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and he will usually send it promptly.

4 - If you wish to know about vaccine regulations in another state, you can obtain this information by contacting its State Department of Health or State Department of Education. (1) If you do not already know it, from a map learn the capital city of that state. (2) Call the operator for the area code of that city. (3) During office hours in that state, dial 1-area code-555-1212 and ask for the phone number of the State Department of Health or the State Department of Education. (4) Dial the number and ask the entering switchboard to be transferred to the department which can give you the state vaccination and immunization requirements. (5) When you are transferred to that office, ask for a written copy of the state compulsory immunization law and its exemptions. Give a name and address for it to be sent to. An alternate source of information would be one or more of the next three listings (items 5, 6, and 7).

5 - A valuable source of information about legalities concerning vaccinations is the American Natural Hygiene Society, Inc., 12816 Race Track Road, Tampa, Florida 33625. This society has available abstracts of state laws from most of the fifty states concerning immunization law exemptions. They try to keep the information up to date.

6 - Another source is Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT): geocities.com and sprynet.com. It was started by concerned lay people and professionals. They promote information about vaccines, assist parents in their legal battles to avoid immunization or obtain compensation from vaccine injuries or death, and urge legislation for safer vaccinations. Members receive an ongoing newsletter. This organization was prominent in the battle to get the NCVIA enacted by Congress (discussed later in this chapter). (Also see the next paragraph.)

7 - If your doctor or local authorities are unrelenting in their efforts to vaccinate your child against your will, you are invited to contact the National Vaccine Information Center (NV1C), 512 W. Maple Avenue, Apt. 206, Vienna, Virginia 22180 (703-938-DPT3; FAX 938-0342).

8 - For information on financial compensation, due to death or injury to a child from a mandated vaccine, see "The Compensation System and How it Works," published by The National Vaccine Information Center.

9 - Another source is The Dangers of Compulsory Immunizations: How to Avoid Them, by Thomas Finn, an attorney residing in Florida. His book is available from Family Fitness Press, Box 1658, New Port Richey, Florida 33552.

10 - A helpful source is the booklet, How to Avoid Unwanted Immunizations of All Kinds, published by Humanitarian Publishing Company, Rural Route 3, Clymer Road, Quakertown, Pennsylvania 18951.

11 - For additional information on immunizations, and how to obtain attorneys in your area, etc., contact National Health Federation, P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, California 91016 (818-357-2181).

12 - If you are being asked to have your child given the standard DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-typhoid) vaccination, you will find a wealth of additional information on the dangers of pertussis vaccines in the book, A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher.

13 - Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety, 8216 192nd Street, Ct E, Spanaway, WA.



Many facts and principles are given in this chapter. Here are several more:

In all your contacts with authorities (school, public health, legal, etc.) remain calm, courteous, and humbly respectful toward their position. You are only asking of them that which duty binds them to give you. Nothing is gained by unnecessarily antagonizing them. If they are overstepping the law, then you must diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention. Do this without belittling them. What you want is a waiver; so help them help you get it, with as little embarrassment on their part as possible.

In theory, the State must provide you with the possibility of exemption waivers, in order to protect itself from responsibility for what might happen if your child is injured as a result of a mandatory vaccination. If a State allows no exceptions, then it must take full responsibility for forcing the citizens to do a certain action which might result in injury. If waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is placed back on the parent: Why did he not sign one?

Thus, all "compulsory" vaccination laws are, in fact, voluntary. The problem is that the officials do not want you to know that.

While all immunization laws have exceptions which you can use, it is important that you know the wording of the law—since it differs from state to state.

Many health officials wish to exert as much control as possible while assuming as little responsibility as possible. Therefore, if you place them in a position in which they must either give you the waiver or, themselves, assume more responsibility, you will usually get your waiver.

When working with school officials and attorneys, it is important that you use the right legal terminology. The correct terminology (some of it is given in this chapter) has worked before and should again. Many of these principles are stated in this book; but, if in doubt, contact item 5, 6, or 7 in the section, "Sources of Information," just above. (Important: Also read the next section, "When the School Requires Immunization.")

It is important that you state your written objections, so they comply with your state’s exemption provisions. According to Grace Girdwain (a researcher into the subject), "they must then accept your request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law." Therefore it is essential that you know your particular state law, word for word, before you submit your written objection.

Most state and county officials like an easy-going, unstressful job. When you send in your written statement of objections, you disturb them and make their life less pleasant for a time. There are only two ways to solve the problem: either coerce you into submission or give you what you want. In order to successfully obtain an early waiver, you want to make the giving of that waiver the easiest path for them.

Because it so frequently succeeds with parents, they will first try to intimidate you. In response, you politely, calmly, but with certainty tell them that you understand your rights under the law and will not accept evasions of those rights. Once they discover that you are adamant and acquainted with the state law, it is likely that your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.

But success cannot easily be guaranteed: There seems to be a hidden power behind the throne. The county is answerable to the state. The state receives federal funds. Major industries with big money contribute heavily to federal and state election campaigns. Then people like you come along and threaten the high volume of vaccine sales. It is recognized that if you succeed in avoiding a vaccination, others may try also.



What can you do when your local school requires immunization? Here are several things to keep in mind.

You can do one of two things: Let your child be immunized or do not let him be immunized. That will be your choice. Make it thoughtfully and carefully. It will be totally your decision.

Because the second of these decisions is the most complicated, we will consider that one here:

Although waivers and exemptions are written into all immunization laws, most public health officials and physicians prefer not to discuss their existence—even when questioned. So, to start with, they do not want you to know that such a waiver exists.

If you hesitate or refuse vaccination, you will then face strong intimidation. They are likely to threaten to keep your child out of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. But, according to a research study by Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois, the officials cannot legally do any of those things if you will take the following five steps:

"1. You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of your stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor, minister, or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized, it could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a possibility of legal action against you.

"2. If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give you a statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won’t, their refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your child. If they do (they rarely will), they take the risk of incriminating themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what is specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they are on tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, not you theirs.

"If worse comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for his refusal, he will also be required to tell you what the accepted exemptions are. Then you can go about meeting them, using the information available here and elsewhere.

"3. Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No legal parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete lack of concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this simply means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have come to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your children immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but only because you were too concerned with other matters.

"4. At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn ‘legal consent.’ Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both the advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other words, if a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and effective to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and you have not been properly informed.

"Conversely, it could be argued that nonconsent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations. Toward this end, the information in Parts I and II of this book should be sufficient to make your consent or nonconsent fully legal.

"5. What I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?

"This would be an extremely rare circumstance, but should it happen, you are not left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns. Send notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes the shot (ask your doctor for the address), the doctor who is to administer the shot, your school principal, the school board, and your local health department. In these letters make it clear that, since they have refused to give you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what may happen to your child, if they force these shots upon him. You then state that you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will consent to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your child may develop from the required shots.

"Of course none will give you such a guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered potentially highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of parents after such letters have been sent.

"That’s about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your children."—Grace Girdwain, "How to Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations of All Kinds," reprinted in Harold E. Buttram, M.D., and John C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization Trio, 1991, pp. 108-109.

Keep in mind that many states only require mandatory vaccination of children in public schools—not private or parochial schools. Carefully read your state’s vaccination law. The principle of a private school may tell you that your child must be vaccinated, when, in fact, the state does not require it of children in private schools.

Some individuals are able to move to a different state and may wish to learn which states are the least strict in their vaccination requirements. (See the section, "Sources of Information," for where to write to obtain those facts.)


What if you are taken to court? You may be brought before the judge—or, what is also likely, you may be asked to appear before a "kangaroo" court of school and health department officials. (This other "court" will be convened to see how determined you are, how much you know, and how likely they can browbeat you into submission.)

A variety of information relating to this probability is given elsewhere in this chapter. Here is more. Among other things, during the hearing, explain in a humble but firm matter the following:

1 - No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it. Therefore, if a person refuses a given vaccination, the responsibility would totally rest on the public health department requiring it.

2 - The U.S. military allows no-nonsense "immunization waivers." So other U.S. citizens should be able to receive them also.

3 - There is no federal law on immunizations. They do not dare to enact one. Their attorneys know what the consequences would be.

4 - My rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use force against my will.

In addition, you may wish to bring in some of the data contained in the next several sections, immediately below.

A helpful tip: Write brief phrases of points you might wish to make on one or more 3 x 5-inch cards. Hold them unobtrusively in your hand, and refer to them when needed. Beforehand, practice speaking the points, referring from time to time to the notes.



In 1986, Congress enacted a special law. Entitled, The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) (NCVIA), it was passed to officially recognize the reality of vaccine-caused injuries and deaths.

"Shortly after, the television documentary ‘DPT: Vaccine Roulette’ was first shown in Washington, D.C., in April, 1982, a group of parents in the area banded together and formed the national organization known as Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT). This nonprofit, educational, and charitable foundation operates the National Vaccine Information Center and has distributed information to thousands of parents across the nation, as well as having collected data on many hundreds of cases of vaccine damage.

"Dissatisfied Parents Together was instrumental in educating Congress and the public about the need for a no-fault compensation system alternative to a lawsuit, which resulted in passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660; 42 USC 300aa 1 et seq.). The vaccine injury compensation and safety legislation was supported by more than fifty major health organizations and drug companies."—H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher, A Shot in the Dark, p. 213.

The reason the law was enacted was because parents were happy that it provided a means of financial payment to those families damaged by vaccinations, and it provided protection to the drug companies against those receiving those payments. (In order to receive the payments, they could not additionally sue the physicians, hospitals, drug firms, etc.) However, provision was made for those who wished to sue rather than receive the compensation:

"During the five years it took to pass the bill, DPT participated in negotiations with the American Academy of Pediatrics, vaccine manufacturers, and legislative staffs to create the first no-fault compensation bill of its kind in America. During that time, the vaccine manufacturers and the American Medical Association pressed for passage of an exclusive remedy compensation bill that would have cut off all vaccine injury lawsuits in the courts. The exclusive remedy bill was also supported by HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] and the Justice Department, but the bill that was passed preserved the parents’ right to choose between the compensation system and accessing the court system to sue negligent doctors and manufacturers."—H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher, A Shot in the Dark, p. 214.

"The United States Government was compelled to step in and rescue drug companies from the ruinous lawsuits brought against them by dismayed and angry parents of children damaged by the pertussis vaccine. Financial investments of drug companies and the vaccine industry dictate the direction of research on immunization policy. Their interests lie in promotion of vaccines, not investigation of side effects."—R. Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 73.

All aspects of the law will prove most helpful if, after the vaccination is given, your child is damaged. We hope you will never need to use it! However, its safety provisions can provide some assistance in your efforts to avoid "mandatory" vaccinations. It specifies that the physician is required by law to notify each vaccinee of all the dangers, prior to injecting the vaccine. This is an important law, yet your state and county officials will never introduce it in their conversations with you—and many would prefer to believe it does not exist.

Therefore it is your responsibility to know about this law. You may need that information later.

This law has two main aspects: safety provisions and a no-fault federal compensation program. (For further information on this second aspect, see "The Compensation System and How it Works," listed in this book under the section, "Sources of Information").


The safety reform portion of NCVIA is as follows:

1 - The NCVIA requires that doctors provide parents with information about childhood diseases and vaccines prior to vaccination. This information must include vaccine risks; that is, the possible dangers that could result from taking each vaccine the physician offers you.

This, of course, is a very important proviso. Yet very few doctors inform parents about vaccine risks, even though vaccine manufacturers place written warning information in every package of vaccine they sell. So the information is there, in hand, when the box is opened.

" ‘According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency in Atlanta which oversees such matters), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the risks involved before they consent to vaccines.’ If they do not do so, it is prima fade evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician. This regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the patient has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If that is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory immunization?"—H.E. Buttram, M.D., and J.C. Hoffman, Ph.D., The Immunization Trio, 1991, p. 110. [The initial quotation is from the writings of Grace Girdwain.]

2 - The NCVIA requires that all doctors who administer vaccines report vaccine reactions to federal health officials. Barbara Loe Fisher, executive vice-president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), said this:

"The will and intent of Congress in enacting the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 is being subverted. This subversion is resulting in an appalling under reporting of vaccine reactions and deaths by both private and public physicians [there is also] a lack of record keeping and/or willingness on the part of physicians to divulge the manufacturer’s name and lot number when a reaction occurs."—Barbara L. Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center [See "Sources of Information" for the NVIC address].

"According to NVIC, doctors often justify their refusal to report vaccine reactions by merely claiming the shot had nothing to do with the child’s injury or death. Some pediatricians may actually believe this, because they quote vaccine policymakers in the AAP and CDC who tell them that the vaccine is completely safe. However, the fear of being sued for failing to warn parents of the potential dangers and contraindications may also be a consideration."—Neil Z. Miller, Vaccinations: Are They Really Safe and Effective? 1992, p. 59.

"Doctors and pediatricians are not the only instruments to the Medical-Industrial Complex who are likely to deny the existence of vaccine reactions and cover up the truth. The medically trained coroners are also members of this elite group . . Rarely is the vaccination ever listed as the cause of death. Instead, they use impressive terms to falsify the death certificate: cardiac arrest; possible myocarditis; bronchial bilateral pneumonia; septicemia due to septic tonsillitis; lymphatic leukemia; streptococcal cellulitis; tubercular meningitis; infantile paralysis; and sudden infant death syndrome, to name a few."—Op. cit., p. 61.

3 - The NCVIA requires doctors to record vaccine reactions in an individual’s permanent record.

The problem here is similar to that discussed under the second requirement, above. Just as vaccine reactions are not being reported, so they are not being properly recorded. The reason for both is the same: to avoid the possibility of a malpractice lawsuit—by eliminating the evidence in advance.

4 - The NCVIA requires doctors to keep a record of the date that each vaccine was given, the manufacturer’s name and lot number, where the vaccine was administered, and the professional title (M.D., R.N., etc.) of the person administering the vaccine. This requirement is closely related to those preceding it. Obviously, such regulations, as the above four—which can be so time-consuming to doctors, hospitals, and public officials—indicate that vaccines can be dangerous!

5 - The NCVIA mandates that the federal government begin urging manufacturers to improve existing vaccines and develop new, safer vaccines.

As a result of the passage of NCVIA, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) started the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The NVAC was assigned the task of getting the universities and vaccine manufacturers to develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by health care providers.

This information was to include negative reactions, contraindications, etc. That information was also to tell the general public that a federal no-fault compensation program was now available for those who are injured or die from a mandated vaccine. (No, you have never heard of this before.) It is obvious that, according to NCVIA, Congress wanted the public to be told about the dangers of vaccines, and to be told about the available financial compensation when vaccines injured those receiving them under mandatory vaccination laws.

But that was as far as it went. The entire matter essentially went nowhere. It is a national law, but no teeth have ever been set in action to require getting the information out to the public. Barbara Loe Fisher, who chairs the subcommittee on adverse reactions for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee gives her comment:

"Even though Congress gave NVAC a dual mission: ‘to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious disease through immunization’ and ‘to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines,’ I had observed that the majority of NVAC time was spent discussing how to promote vaccination. The equally important goal of identifying ways to prevent vaccine reactions appears to be a subject that causes discomfort among many committee members, is viewed as an obstacle to promoting vaccination and is generally given little time or in-depth treatment (in a September 16, 1990, letter written by Barbara Loe Fisher to Donald A. Henderson, chairman of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, p. 1).

"Not only is there a lack of concern about the subject of vaccine reactions on the part of some committee members, but there is a deliberate attempt to deny the reality of vaccine reactions, deaths, and injuries . . (Committee members need] to spend more time trying to find ways to solve problems associated with preventing vaccine reactions rather than trying to find ways to reword subcommittee reports to deny the existence of [children who were injured or killed during] a vaccine reaction."—Barbara Loe Fisher, letter dated September 16, 1990, to Donald A. Henderson, chairman of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, pp. 1-2.

As usual, the underlying problem is that there are powerful organizations in America that do not want people to know that there is anything wrong with vaccines. If the public learned that, it might stop mass vaccinations.

"HHS was to satisfy this legal requirement by no later than December 22, 1988. However, by March 4, 1991, this matter was still unsettled, and notice was provided to Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., secretary of HHS, of the intent to bring a lawsuit against Sullivan and the Department for failure to perform an ‘act or duty’ as required by law. This notice was submitted by NVIC on behalf of several parents of vaccination-aged children (NVIC Mini News, Vienna, VA., March 1991, p.1).

"Because HHS has failed to publish the required information, high risk children who should not receive one or more of the vaccines may suffer from avoidable brain damage, permanent disabilities, and even death. And parents whose children were injured or died from one or more of the vaccines during the past few years may still be unaware of their right to seek compensation.

"It should be noted that vaccine guidelines were eventually submitted by the advisory committee (after the December 22, 1988, deadline) but were rejected by NVIC on the grounds that they ‘failed to meet even minimal standards of scientific rigor, candor, and fairness.’ Vaccine risks were systematically understated or ignored. For example, the proposed guidelines stated that ‘a few people will have a serious problem,’ but they do not mention that a ‘serious problem’ could be permanent brain damage or death. The guidelines also reveal a selective use of scientific data, downplay the true rates of adverse reactions, and give inconsistent, incomplete, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous information regarding contraindications."—Neil Z. Miller, Vaccinations: Are They Really Safe and Effective? 1992, p. 62.

But how can it be otherwise, when such powerful lobbies and pressure groups are so influential in Washington, D.C.? For example, James Cherry and Edward Mortimer, two prominent physicians who were "impartial" advisers to the Department of Health and Human Services (the federal agency responsible for developing and promoting vaccine safety guidelines) were found to have been paid $800,000 by pertussis vaccine manufacturers for expert witness and consulting fees and research grants (National Vaccine Information Center press release, dated May 9, 1991).

In America, medical schools are subsidized by the foundations and grants of the multi-billion dollar drug industry. That same industry spends an average of $6,000 a year on every physician in America—to get him to prescribe their drugs.

In England, in order to drum up more business, the National Health Service pays a ‘bonus’ to doctors with documented vaccination rates greater than specified percentages (Richard Moskowitz, M. D., "Vaccination: A Sacrament of Modern Medicine," speech in Manchester, England, September 1991).

America now spends many times more money on medical care than does England, Canada, or Japan. In fact, our total medical bill is now around $400 billion a year and growing at a rate close to 15% annually.

Medical care is a terrific success story in the United States: More than two-thirds of all Americans suffer from chronic illness; 132 million workdays are lost to illness at a cost to industry of $25 billion a year; 36 million suffer from arthritis, 250,000 of these are children; 12 million Americans have diabetes; 43.5 million have heart or blood vessel disease; 550,000 die each year of a heart attack; 525,600 new cases of cancer are diagnosed yearly; 420,000 die of cancer each year. On and on it goes.



The compensation portion of NCVIA is as follows:

1 - The NCVIA would provide this financial compensation as an alternative to suing vaccine manufacturers and physicians, when children or adults are injured or die because of reactions to mandated vaccines.

2 - The NCVIA would provide for awards up to $250,000, per case, if the individual dies or to compensate for pain and suffering if the child survived but was brain damaged. Awards were also to be given for permanent injuries involving learning disabilities, seizure disorders, mental retardation, and paralysis. 

In official physician’s reports, vaccine-caused injury and death to children are often attributed to some cause other than the vaccine. In addition, the public is not widely told about this federal compensation law, lest they start fearing to have their children vaccinated—or overwhelm it with claims. Yet, in spite of these drawbacks, it is highly significant that, by July 1992 (less than four years from the time that the NCVIA was enacted), more than $249 million had been awarded for vaccine-caused injuries or death. Thousands of cases are still pending ("On Vaccination Safety," Washington Post, November 2, 1992; for further documentation, see U.S. Claims Court records.). At the rate it is going, the number of claims may eventually bankrupt the U.S. Treasury. But that will be no problem, as long as vaccine sales continue. Nothing must stand in the way of "protecting the children."

In connection with these filings for claims, the Food and Drug Administration released a mid-1992 report, which said that more than 17,000 injuries and 350 deaths from vaccines had occurred in the 20-month period from November 31, 1990, to July 31, 1992 ("On Vaccination Safety," Washington Post, November 2, 1992). If you know someone who believes that vaccinations hardly ever hurt anyone, read them this paragraph.

It is also of interest that many of the awards given for pertussis (whooping cough vaccine) deaths were complicated by the fact that physicians had initially recorded them as "sudden infant death syndrome" (NVIC Mini News, November 1990, p. 2).

The intriguing question is who pays for these awards? The answer is the general public.

Congress voted a special tax on all mandated vaccines sold after October 1, 1988. In some cases, this tax is several dollars per injection. (DPT [diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus] and MMR [mumps, measles, and rubella] have the heaviest tax; apparently they cause the most death and damage. Remember that fact; it is based on detailed federal statistics—which you and I do not have access to.) This tax is passed on to consumers who are, in effect, paying vaccine insurance to pay for the damage which may be received from the vaccine.

In ancient times, people sacrificed their children to Molech; now they are required to offer them to vaccines.



What about traveling to other countries? Can you go around the world without vaccinations? The World Health Organization (WHO) based in Geneva, Switzerland, grants American visitors and tourists the right to refuse shots when traveling internationally. You simply declare exemption under Clause 83 of the International Sanitary Code, issued by WHO and adopted by all its members.

Exceptions built into Clause 83: (1) If you come from an infected area, vaccinations are necessary OR you might be quarantined (detained in one place) for up to 14 days from the time you left the infected area IF the health department of the nation you arrive in thinks it necessary. If you come from an area where there has been an epidemic, you will probably be put under surveillance. This means that, together with the local health department, you must keep watch for suspicious signs or symptoms. You will probably be required to report periodically to the local health officer for a period up to 14 days, from the time of your departure from the infected area. If symptoms occur, you must immediately turn yourself in and submit to quarantine or isolation. (2) If an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health official permits you to continue on.

In actual practice, all this is quite remote. Even if it did happen, it would not matter whether you had taken your shots before leaving your home nation; you would be quarantined for 14 days along with those who had refused the vaccines.

Every year thousands travel abroad without taking vaccinations, and with little or no inconvenience. They simply sign a waiver before they start their overseas travel. When you receive your passport, request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunizations. That is the sheet that spells out your right to not be inoculated in your travels. Keep a copy in the bottom of your suitcase.


Can a person in the U.S. Armed Forces obtain a waiver, so he will not have to take an inoculation? Yes, all branches of the Service provide "immunization waivers." If they did not, they could be sued for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because waivers are available, the person accepting vaccination thereby takes responsibility for what happens thereafter.

The procedure goes this way: When a person first enlists, he must state his objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medications of any kind. But, if that person does not initially sign that written vaccination waiver statement, he cannot thereafter be exempted from receiving inoculations. Henceforth, the military has the right to do what it wants to with that person.

The underlying point is that a person did not give up basic rights when he enlisted. Even though he may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize him against his will.



"Parents often need booster doses of vaccine education. They should keep in mind three points of information: (1) Vaccines have immediate, sometimes drastic, side effects. (2) Vaccines have unknown long-term side effects which may include post-encephalitis brain damage. (3) Vaccine efficacy may decrease as adults when the diseases are more serious."—R. Neustaedter, The Immunization Decision, 1990, p. 89.

When enough people set to work to accomplish something good, they can succeed. The public needs to be educated and the laws changed. Frankly, in this work women are frequently much more influential than men. They are the mothers of America. They are the ones who bear and raise the children. Nothing is more ferocious than a mother protecting her young. Working together toward a common goal unites people and, in the process, gets a lot of publicity in the newspapers and on local and statewide television.

There are individuals out there who actually set to work to change state vaccination laws—and make them more liberal. Here is one example:

"It was now time [for our group] to contact legislators and formally open an area chapter of the National Health Federation.

"On January 4, 1982, I mailed letters to the five House of Delegates and the three state senators of our district, requesting that Section D of Article 3, Chapter 2 of the Code of Virginia (the compulsory immunization law) be amended to include an exemption based upon personal beliefs. I cited the unconstitutionality of the present law. Three delegates replied saying they would investigate the matter, and our senator from this area, Joe Canada, said he would send my letter to legislative services to have a bill drafted.

"On May 13, 1982, the Tidewater chapter of the National Health Federation had its first meeting. Our first project was getting a petition signed which requested that the Compulsory Immunization Laws of Virginia be amended to provide for an exemption based upon personal conviction. The petition mentioned that there were 19 states that already had this exemption. An accompanying sheet listed, with references, some of the diseases and disabilities that have been linked to immunizations and pointed out that there are natural and harmless ways of preventing and treating so-called dread diseases for which vaccines are given."—Walene James, Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth, 1988, p. 149.

Well, in this book we have discussed a serious problem. It does not affect everyone who receives a vaccine. But it affects a significant percentage of them. Many of the viruses injected into people during vaccinations are "attenuated"; that means they are sick live viruses. Because these organisms are so small, hundreds of millions are pumped into an arm with a single squeeze on the syringe. Would you like to place millions of sick germs in the bloodstream of someone you loved?

What should you do about this to protect others? What should you do to protect your own family? Personal decisions must be made. An abundance of data has been given to you in this book. It is our prayer that your decision will be a wise one.


Since neither the author and researcher of this book, nor the publisher, is an attorney at law, they cannot attest to the ultimate legal status of any of the data and suggestions made in this book, in reference to vaccines, vaccinations, or vaccination laws.

The information given was factual, to the best of their knowledge. The methods of obtaining waivers have been successfully used by others, but that does not prove they will always be successful, nor in all states.

We therefore recommend that, if in doubt, before any action is taken—that you consult a reputable attorney in your own state and carefully consider his recommendations.

Nothing in this book is to be construed as suggesting that anyone should, or should not, receive immunizations of various kinds. This is the sole decision of each individual. Our objective is to present, to those who desire them, their legal rights as American citizens regarding this matter.

Chapter 9  Chapter 11