Vaccination Liberation - Information
Legal: Science: Misc: Searches:

Package Inserts
Ingredients of Vaccines
Artificially Sweetened Times
Books Videos Tapes
100+ Anti-Vax links
Breaking News
Smallpox Alert!

Questions and Answers:

What about adopting a child and giving no vaccinations?
We have no personal experience to help guide you. However, several information sources and suggestions follow:

The social worker who advises that a letter from a doctor would be beneficial is giving good advice.

After some comments is a URL to a 'Refusal letter' which can be printed.

Also the URL for the laws of Montana re school/vaccination exemptions, a portion of which is at this page's end.

It might be well to state in writing to the Judge that the US government has paid about $1 Billion in damages to individuals and/or parents for vaccine damages since 1986.(NVICP)

Also, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) receives 11,000 to 14,000 reports yearly in the USA since 1990. A 23 month period of the VAERS Database can be found at:
FDA's VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) DATABASE AVAILABLE ON FEDBUZZ.COM.
This database contains VAERS data reported between January 1, 1998 and November 30, 1999. (about 24,000 or 25,000 reports approx.)

Also each vaccine comes with an insert which gives a required minimum of known side effects, contra-indications and a list of ingredients which often serves as an eye opener. It might be good to attach inserts for each vaccine in a letter to the judge.

In addition, Tort law describes all medical treatment as:
inherently dangerous and which by its nature is incapable of being made safe. (This is not an exact quote.)
Some files of interest including a form letter which contains much information on vaccine damages:
A printable letter which can be given to a doctor or to the state authorities to let them know that the parents accept the "risk of non-vaccination".
By doing this, the state authorities have in writing that they, the authorities, are not responsible for the decision.

20-5-405. Medical or religious exemption.
(1) When a parent, guardian, or adult who has the responsibility for the care and custody of a minor seeking to attend school or the person seeking to attend school, if an adult, signs and files with the governing authority, prior to the commencement of attendance each school year, a notarized affidavit on a form prescribed by the department stating that immunization is contrary to the religious tenets and practices of the signer, immunization of the person seeking to attend the school may not be required prior to attendance at the school. The statement must be maintained as part of the person's immunization records. A person who falsely claims a religious exemption is subject to the penalty for false swearing provided in 45-7-202.
(2) When a parent, guardian, or adult who has the responsibility for the care and custody of a minor seeking to attend school, or the person seeking to attend school, if an adult, files with the governing authority a written statement signed by a physician licensed to practice medicine in any jurisdiction of the United States or Canada stating that the physical condition of the person seeking to attend school or medical circumstances relating to him indicate that some or all of the required immunizations are not considered safe and indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances which contraindicate immunization, he is exempt from the requirements of this part to the extent indicated by the physician's statement. The statement must be maintained as part of the person's immunization records.

Back to TOP of page.

What can be done to relieve adverse effects of vaccination?
Suggestion: go to
Check out Dr. Shultze's program: 1-800-HERB-DOC (437-2362) and ask for their "incurables program". Totally worth charging up your card for if you want permanent wellness and recovery.
Also see the article "Reversing Autism" on this website: Reversing Autism
Links to detoxification information is at:
Back To Basics of Health series:

Back to TOP of page.

Answer #3: Click for Article on Vitamin K Controversy on Vaclib Site
Back to TOP of page.

Vaccines do work, don't they?

We understand that many have a belief system that purports that vaccines "work". We have looked for an adequate scientific study that proves that vaccines are both effective and safe but never found such a study.

Adequate scientific tests:
-- of a vaccine should contain at least two groups:
A: the group receiving only the trial vaccine,
B: the totally unvaccinated placebo group
  And it is good to have additional groups:
C: the group receiving all "regular" vaccines plus the trial vaccine,
D: the group receiving only the "regular vaccines,

and it is also good to have reliable statistics from the large general public living in the same general area, time and ages as are in the trial groups. Ideally, the general public should contain

F: a large number of totally unvaccinated individuals
G: a large number of individuals with the recommended vaccines.

Valid health comparisons are A: to B:, C: to D: and F: to G:. Comparing B: to F: may be useful but group B: may be selectively picked from F: and thus should be expected to have better health. If group B: is less healthy than Group F: then it should be suspected that the "placebo" was not a true inert substance. Such a richness of data is seldom available and its availability would thoroughly embarrass the vaccine establishment.

--The trial must be monitored by independent scientifically knowledgeable people who are paid by potential consumers, not by manufacturers.

--All groups must contain populations with the the same diversity of living conditions and diet and be exposed in a natural manner to the same microbes.

--The vaccinated and placebo groups must have the vaccine and placebo administered under what is called double blind conditions. Double blind means neither the people or the doctors involved know who receives vaccines and who receives placebos. Copies of the record of what each injection contains and who receives it must remain in the possession of both the consumer paid supervisors as well as the manufacturers' representatives.

--The health of all groups must be "actively" checked on a long term basis, preferably over several years. Disease incidence must be carefully measured in all groups and must include ALL diseases not just the target disease.

--True vaccine "effectiveness" must be measured and calculated by comparing numbers of target disease incidence in the vaccinated to incidence in the unvaccinated. This measurement of true effectiveness is vastly different than the antibody counts usually used to claim 'effectiveness'. Antibody measurements are usually termed 'efficacy' figures.

--Each group must be large enough in size and of an appropriate age such that a significant expectation of target disease incidence exists. The CDC requires 20 cases of disease for effectiveness calculations.

-- In addition, all data must be accounted for. Test results must contain initial criteria for who was included in the tests. Individuals removed from the test after the first and subsequent vaccinations must be listed as to cause of removal and must have continued active monitoring of their health.

--It comes as an unpleasant surprise to many to find that actual testing of vaccines
occurs generally only in a healthy group and thus it can not be predicted how less healthy members of the general public will react to the vaccine,
too small a number of test subjects,
too short a followup testing time in the trial,
and sometimes only a 'passive' data collection for vaccine adverse side effects occurs.

Placebos are inert substances, but when control populations are used in vaccine trials, the control is not a placebo but another vaccine. The Prevnar vaccine trial used another experimental vaccine as the "control" for Prevnar. The practice of using vaccines, including experimental vaccines, as a substitute for placebos creates biases so that it is impossible to determine true safety data. Also, vaccine trials use selected populations by removing individuals who suffered previous vaccine side effects before the test study begins and then again those who suffer side effects during the study. While it is good to exclude these individuals, it is necessary to account for how this removal biases the test study result.

In addition, manufactures claim their product is "effective" based on antibody counts. However, it has been proven that antibody counts DO NOT correspond to actual immunity.

In summary, we can say that true effectiveness of vaccines is not measured before marketing and safety data is seriously biased and usually only tells us that the vaccine will be "tolerated by a healthy individual" but this is no measurement of how an unhealthy individual will react to the vaccine. Because no independent consumer paid group monitors vaccine testing, this further casts doubt on the validity of vaccine company safety and effectiveness claims.

To date, the only time we can say that an adequate test was performed on a vaccine was when the data was sufficient to keep the the product off the market. No vaccine on the market can honestly and accurately be said to have been proven both safe and effective.

Dr. Viera Scheibner wrote a book entitled, Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System. This book is available from Dr. Scheibner documents her studies with CotWatch in this book. CotWatch is the breathing monitor she and her husband developed to prevent Cot Death also known as SIDS. What she discovered is that damage to the nervous system of babies occurs due to vaccines is sometimes followed by failure to breath.

Back to TOP of page.

What is the truth about the measles vaccine?

See the wonderful article: The Measles vaccine: the Facts !

A pox on Vaccines

Autism more common than Measles: Shots in the Dark

Measles Incidence Before and After Supplementary Vaccination Activities
--- Lusaka, Zambia, 1996--2000
[MMWR 50(24):513-516, 2001. Centers for Disease Control]

Number of measles cases in USA - Nice Graph. Medscape from CDC.

Back to TOP of page.

Q6. Is there thimerosal in modern vaccines?
[Note: many old vaccines have not been removed from stock. So the fact that modern vaccines do not use mercury as a preservative does not mean that one automatically gets thimerosal free vaccines. See below for use of thimerosal in "manufacturing" so 'thimerosal free' may not be what is claimed.]

Apparently at the recent congressional hearings, it was stated that the MMR vaccine does not use thimerosal as a preservative. Hmmmm.
I wondered what that all was about in the hearing............

The plot thickens. According to Liz Birt, who is in one of my lists, there is thimerosal in MMR. I had checked the PDR and it said there were no preservatives used. However..........

Sandy from Alaska
Sandy: I have been working with Boyd Haley since September 2000 who testified at the recent Congressional hearing. Your source is incorrect. I have Boyd's testing results and there is mercury in MMR. He did not find as much s what was in Hib, Hep B and DTaP. However, IT IS THERE. Whether this is problematic since it may be acting to kill the live virus which makes the vaccine more dangerous is open for debate. Also, my son got MMR and Hib at the same time so he did get mercury from the Hib and MMR combined. Nonetheless, the mercury in the MMR may be acting to depress the immune system and to boost the immune system to an unacceptable level in some children so they actually get the measles like my son. If you want any additional information let me know.

It is in there believe me. We sent samples to Boyd Haley's laboratory and he detected it. It is not disclosed because it is used in the"manufacturing process" and is not used as a "preservative".
Liz Birt

Back to TOP of page.

What do you think about MSEHPA?
For various comments and letters on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, see the next:
MSEHPA index of articles
Back to TOP of page.

Why is Vaccination such a controversial matter?

To understand the vaccination controversy, one must know and understand several things.
  • The cause of disease in relationship to internal toxicity, not just the germ theory of disease.
  • The difference between a disease and the healing of that disease.
  • The difference between proven scientific facts and assumed or even disproven theories. (Fact versus the 'Ivory Tower' positions.)
  • The various ways that one can make mistakes with statistics.
  • The various ways that propaganda uses theories and beliefs to state falsehoods.
  • The fact that our government is heavily influenced in its pro vaccine position by non-scientific considerations.
Each of these areas are subjects for long study and we can only touch on a few for brevity and we make no claim for mastery. However, the following are obvious to individuals in the pro-freedom and anti-compulsory movement as it relates to vaccines.

The following 5 items are basically non controversial but are highly condensed:
1) The history of changes in our life style in the last 200 years shows that 90% of infectious disease MORTALITY decline occurred before vaccines could be introduced.

2) After the introduction of vaccines, MORTALITY decline remained basically the same as pre vaccine.

3) There are about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines per year. FDA estimates this is about 1 in 10 of total, other studies say 1 in 40, a manufacturer of vaccines says 1 in 50 and CDC has suggested it may as little as 1 in 100 of the total. Thus we have a minimum of 90,000 and a maximum of about 900,000 with the typical 'conservative' estimate being 300,000 serious adverse reactions per year due to vaccines.

4) No vaccine on the market has ever been subjected to a truly adequate scientific test proving it is EFFECTIVE and SAFE.

5) The government 'insurance agency' pays $50,000,000 per year to claimants for vaccine damage. This is only one fourth of applicants. Applicants are only a fraction of the total potential claimants.

Certain words above are capitalized to high light their importance so if we argue it will be 'apples to apples' not apples to oranges.

Disease Incidence vs Mortality Incidence

Mortality: imagine you visit a rural community with a doctor serving as medical examiner (coroner) it is obvious that the same individual will be less effective at diagnosing living patients compared to the skill of determining the cause of death in a fatality. This is due to the greater freedom one may exercise with a corpse. Claims that Disease Incidence dropped greatly after vaccine was introduced is highly subject to both subconscious and conscious bias. In addition, one must account for what would have been the continuing natural decline had vaccination not been practiced. It is clear that if we base our judgment in this area on mortality, not incidence, then vaccines made an INSIGNIFICANT contribution to modern health standards.

Insignificant is a nice word for the experts to use because it allows for a small benefit, zero benefit, or small detriment to all fall within 'insignificant'.

Real value of vaccination

It should be noted that there are records of epidemics where the vaccinated:
caught the disease first,
had the most disease incidence,
and had the most severe cases.

None the less, too further understand the true value of the disease incidence claims, let us generate a hypothetical case.

Hypothetical vaccine study (Measles vaccine)
Imagine a study were 15,000 children are selected. Assume the following statistics are generated in the year following:
50 measles cases in the unvaccinated group.
40 measles cases in the placebo group.
20 measles cases in the vaccinated group.
Now the data above is hypothetical, but lets give a REAL World interpretation so we understand what it would truly mean if one ran into such a claim.
First we know the the health departments will watch the unvaccinated like a hawk and that 50 will be accurate to the 'last child'.
Because the mind is powerful, and we have some information on 'placebo effect' it is not unreasonable to assume the 20% reduction in disease incidence in the placebo group due to faith. (But note that modern 'tests' do not actually measure this effect.)
However, the vaccinated group were injected with what we can fairly say was literally a 'concoction of corrupt crap', or is it actually 'a mild beneficial poison'?
Is the above 'data' real, or did bias creep somehow into our 'double blind test'?
For the sake of stomping a fallacy into the ground, lets assume that here (and here only), the data is 'real' but at a minimum vastly incomplete because it contains no data on safety. Now lets look at our controversy.
One side says, given the above data, it is obvious the vaccine
A: "prevented disease and improved health".
The other sides, says,
B: "the vaccine interfered with healing, and caused disease."
What scientific test would be required to settle this argument?
If A is correct then fever and rash, the symptoms for one disease decreased and there were insignificant side effects from the vaccine in the nature of other disease symptoms.
If B is correct, then it makes no difference whether the incidence data is correct, because there exists sufficient knowledge to know that chronic diseases increase in significant amounts in the vaccinated.

Fever and Rash are healing symptoms of 'acute beneficial cleansing episodes'.
Basically fever and rash, indeed mucus from nose and throat, bad breath, skin odor, diarrhea, copious urination are not the actual diseases from which we suffer but are only symptoms of the healing force acting to throw out toxins. We also need to know that the real cause of so called infectious diseases is really the internal state of the body in terms of how toxic it is. Fever is a manifestation of Healing Power. Thus what does scientific data tell us about position A versus B.
Just this. Vaccinated individuals have more disease. The diseases that the vaccinated have more of tend to be chronic. I.E. asthma, allergies, ADD, autism, diabetics, cancer, etc. (Look at the many evidences of this on the web site and elsewhere.) So the bottom line is that position B is correct:
"Vaccines may interfere with healing but have no power to prevent disease."

For a discussion of what constitutes an adequate test,

The following is from an FDA site:

"It is estimated that each year in the U.S. there are about 16,000 cases of pneumococcal bacteremia and 1400 cases of pneumococcal meningitis among children under age five. Children under the age of two are at highest risk for infection. In up to half the cases of meningitis, brain damage and hearing loss occurs and about 10 percent die.

Clinical trials included a large multicenter safety and efficacy study conducted at Northern California Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif. The controlled, double- blind trial enrolled approximately 38,000 children, about half of whom received Prevnar. The vaccine was given at 2, 4, 6 and 12-15 months of age along with routinely recommended vaccines. In this trial, the vaccine was 100 percent effective in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease caused by the seven strains of pneumococcus in the vaccine. The vaccine was approximately 90 percent effective in preventing invasive disease for illnesses caused by all pneumococcal subtypes."

First, no mention is made of the necessary group of healthy unvaccinated children, or even the rate of this disease prior to the vaccine era. One of reasons that the pro vaccine powers that be avocate mandatory vaccination is to eliminate the very group of people that can prove the vaccine is either unneeded or unsafe. We are told an estimate of disease incidence for the USA but is that valid for California, or even the USA? What association does other vaccines have as a CAUSE for pneumococcal diseases. It is possible the disease (estimated) incidence figures are inflated for vaccinated children and even more inflated for unvaccinated children.
Note in the FDA announcement the statement, "The controlled, double- blind trial". However, other reports of the trial tell us that the "CONTROL" was actually an experimental Hep-C Vaccine. In other words, a toxic concoction was substituted for a placebo. A placebo is supposed to be inert and harmless. This substitution certainly biases the test as far as determining safety. Either vaccine, the Prevnar or the experimental Hep-C may cause any number of diseases. Comparing each to the other gives biased results for both safety and disease incidence rates.

Secondly: the test is conducted by an organization with a financial interest in the outcome, but no mention is made of an adequate monitoring by independent scientific personal.

Thirdly: 16,000 +1400 = 17,400 pneumococcal disease cases in the USA per year are estimated. In 5 years of child population at 4 million per year x 5 years = 20,000,000 (approx) children. In plain language, this disease incidence is less than 1 child per thousand or somewhat higher in the less than 2 year olds. This means that in a years time we would expect about 20 disease incidence cases in each half of the study. If the estimates are correct! And it would be common experience that they are greatly inflated.

We are not told how many children were rejected from the test before picking the 38,000. All you have to do is reject 1% of the child population, namely those who have had previous adverse vaccine reactions or who are a part of families who have allergies, especially to vaccines, to bias the test severely as the test group would have far less than average disease incidence. What data is the 100% and 90% effectiveness based upon? We are told nothing about how adverse reactions were determined but as both halves of the vaccine study are vaccinated we know it is certain the 'safety data' is based on flawed methodology testing. We are told nothing about unvaccinated children's rate of disease. We are not told what the "placebo" composition was but typically what is labeled 'placebo' in vaccine trials is a poison (I.E. an untested vaccine, or vaccine fluids, etc) in order to bias the tests in favor of the vaccine. In short, many will not feel it safe and beneficial to give this vaccine to their child based on these tests.

We urge concerned individuals not to take others freedom to provide the very thing needed to prove or disprove vaccine practice which is a large number of unvaccinated children living in the same time, place and manner other than vaccination.

Buyers effectiveness versus Sellers effectiveness

As to the question above on 'effectiveness', let us look at another claim found on the FDA site:

"Fighting the Flu
... Studies have shown the vaccine's effectiveness rate to be 70 to 90 percent in healthy young adults. In the elderly and in people with certain chronic illnesses ... - Cached - 14k"

The 70 - 90 percent effectiveness mentioned above is actually 70 - 90 percent efficacy. So whats the difference? Efficacy is a substitute for 'real/buyers effectiveness' and is actually 'sellers effectiveness'. True effictiveness is based on a comparison between the disease incidence in a vaccinated group and an unvaccinated group, both of which possess the same health potential other than vaccination. Efficacy is based on antibody counts, which are approximately worthless in predicting who is immune. So antibody counts are 'sold' as effectiveness but have nothing to do with real effectiveness. It is rare that genuine effectiveness is even measured in vaccine testing. For the Flu the true effectiveness of the vaccine can be measured only after the flu season has passed.