Great Denial of Vaccine Risks & Freedom - Page 2

Author // Barbara Loe Fisher

Article Index
Great Denial of Vaccine Risks & Freedom
Page 2
All Pages

In 1997, I was asked to present an argument for the moral right to conscientious belief exemption to vaccination to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. After my 20-minute presentation, there was a several hour “discussion” where I was grilled by public health officials who alternately acknowledged the importance of the informed consent principle and called me “selfish,” a “threat to the public health,” and “uninformed.”

The defining moment of that encounter, for me at least, came when I looked the physician architect of the CDC-led “No shots, No school” campaign in the eye and said “Whether or not I put my child’s life on the line for you and your vaccines is between me and my God and not between me and you, Doctor.” The way he gritted his teeth and glared at me while his face flushed bright red, spoke volumes about what the Great Denial is all about. It is about whether we, the citizens, are going to have the power to freely choose which pharmaceutical products or other medical interventions we are going to use or whether that power is going to be taken from us by doctors and public health officials.

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts is the U.S. Supreme Court decision which affirmed the constitutional right of the states to enact mandatory vaccination laws. Concerned about controlling smallpox, little did the justices at the turn of the 20th century imagine that federal officials would someday recommend 69 doses of 16 vaccines for children from 12 hours of age through age 18 years or that New Jersey would mandate more than three dozen doses of 13 vaccines for children to attend school. In an insightful review of that historic 1905 Supreme Court decision, the Harvard Law Review recently examined the application of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts to vaccine laws in the 21st century.

If one citizen or group of citizens in America is allowed to force fellow citizens to risk injury or death without their voluntary, informed consent, then are Americans free in any sense of the word? When forced risk-taking involves mandated use of pharmaceutical products protected from liability in the judicial system, which the authors of the Constitution created as a check and balance on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, then people can be easily exploited for power and profit. Unless vaccines and other pharmaceutical products are subject to the law of supply and demand so citizens can freely choose those which are necessary, safe, and effective and reject those which are not, the people become nothing more than enslaved consumers of potentially dangerous products marketed by companies with no economic or legal incentive to improve those products.

And if the state can tag, track down, and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

As the 44th President of the United States was sworn in this year in our nation’s Capitol, we can only pray that he will have the intelligence, compassion, and conscience to make sure that his Administration is not afraid to find out the truth about vaccine risks. With 1 child in 6 now developmentally delayed in America and no answers from government health officials as to how they got that way, our nation’s future may depend on it.

The National Vaccine Information Center is prepared to stand with other parent groups representing families with vaccine injured children to call for an end to the Great Denial by those responsible for ensuring our children’s health and safety.

Let freedom ring: no forced vaccination. Not in America.

Pathways Issue 21 CoverThis article appeared in Pathways to Family Wellness magazine, Issue #21.

View Author Bio

To purchase this issue, Order Here.