Tag: vaccines

  • Vaccines, Aluminum and the ALLERGY connection

    Vaccines, Aluminum and the ALLERGY connection

    Researchers at the University of Virginia Health System’s Division of Asthma, Allergy & Immunology report that an era of food allergies that began with the post-millennial generation might be a response to vaccines containing the adjuvant alum, a known trigger for allergic traits. Alum is usually the name given to potassium aluminum sulfate when used in vaccines, the FDA states. Sometimes, aluminum hydroxide and even other forms of aluminum adjuvants are also referred to as alum in allergy research.

    In their article published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the UVA team described their rationale for measuring the allergy responses of a patient — who had already demonstrated some food allergies to cow’s milk and peanuts — in relation to the administration of vaccines that contained alum.

    “The era of food allergy began with the post-millennial generation, the same faction who received new immunizations during early childhood. Many of these vaccines contain alum, an adjuvant known to induce allergic phenotypes.”

    The team measured the baby girl’s IgE (IU/mL) and IgG4 (mcg/mL) by ImmunoCAP. IgE, or Immunoglobulin E, are antibodies that are produced by the immune system in association with allergic responses, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, which states that people with allergies have immune systems that overreact to allergens by producing the IgE antibodies.

    IgG4 is one subclass of IgG, the most common form of antibody proteins in our bodies. IgG antibodies make up three-fourths of the antibodies in our blood at any time, but IgG4 is one of the least common of the IgG antibodies, accounting for a mere four percent of IgG in blood serum. They have a very unique structure, according to the medical journal, Current Opinion in Rheumatology, which explains that their biological role is still uncertain. It’s believed that IgG4 antibodies are driven, at least in part, by signaling molecules that regulate immunity, inflammation, and the process of creating new blood cells.

    The UVA researchers said that between the ages of 8- and 12-months, the baby’s total IgE had decreased in response to both peanut and cow’s milk by the time her one-year vaccinations were due, though the total IgE was still high enough that most people would show at least some allergy symptoms. At 12-months-old, the little girl got those one-year vaccinations. Three weeks later, her IgE antibodies sharply increased, almost doubling from 44.1 to 75.6. Her peanut antibodies increased from 11.2 to 16.5, and her milk antibodies increased from 2 to 5.06. Interestingly, in Allergy And Asthma Proceedings, a statistically significant association was declared between IgE antibody levels and the severity of eczema in atopic individuals.

    After this response, alum-containing vaccines were avoided. Four months after her 12-month vaccines, her total IgE decreased to 51, which was still higher than before her one-year vaccines were given. The baby had completely avoided peanuts, but her peanut-related antibodies continued to rise while all other IgE values decreased. The baby began cow’s milk oral desensitization about a month after turning one-year-old. Though her IgE antibodies related to cow’s milk didn’t increase, her IgG4 antibodies to the cow’s milk were “remarkably higher” after the desensitization therapy.

    The research team concluded that alum-containing vaccines increased IgE, and stated that this is something that they had already observed in their earlier research. The milk desensitation therapy somehow increased the milk-related IgG4, which they had also seen reported after peanut immunotherapy.

    Interestingly, another article, this one published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, reported that in order to study food allergies, specific genetically susceptible wild-mice were actually given egg white protein (ovalbumin) allergies by administering the protein at the same time as the adjuvant alum. Another article in the Korean Journal of Internal Medicine claimed that the “most simple and effective method of inducing an asthmatic reaction in a short period of time in mice” is to inject them with the both the egg white protein and the adjuvant alum two times, with the two injections spaced one week apart.

    Literature from the University of Auckland explains that some vaccines contain tiny amounts of aluminum salts, like alum, in order improve the immune response to those vaccines. That literature says that we are born with some aluminum in our bodies already and add to our stores “through eating, drinking, receiving some vaccines and taking some medicines.” Only a very small amount of aluminum ever enters our blood stream through digestion, according to that literature. When we eat aluminum, most of it comes out through our feces. That literature says that when aluminum enters our blood stream, it is mostly removed by our kidneys, but that a tiny amount can stay in our bodies and “is mainly stored in our bones, with some stored in our lungs and brain.” The University of Auckland literature says that more aluminum gets absorbed by our bloodstream from vaccines than by ingestion, but that the amount is very small, and it is mostly processed and removed.

    In the Journal of Immunotoxicology, researchers from the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Northeastern University said that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carry a risk of inducing these undesired, allergic responses, especially in people who are genetically predisposed to these types of responses from vaccines and to atopic diseases. These researchers wrote that they have found some genetic variants that might make people more susceptible to allergies being induced by aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, and pointed out that determining who may have these gene variants before vaccination could reduce the incidences of these unfortunate responses to vaccines.

    “Identification of these individuals may decrease the risk of adverse events associated with the use of aluminum-containing vaccines.”

    According to the CDC, alum is found in a handful of vaccines at the same time that potential allergens are.

    In Comvax, a vaccine used to protect against Hib and hepatitis B, both soy and yeast are potential allergens that are injected at the same time as alum during vaccination. 
    In the hepatitis B vaccine Recombivax, yeast protein and soy are also found in the same injection as alum. According to the World Allergy Organization Journal, vaccines approved for human use in the U.S. that contain aluminum adjuvants include some Hib conjugate vaccines, DTaP vaccines, all combination DTaP, Tdap, and Hib vaccines, hepatitis B vaccines, hepatitis A vaccines, HPV vaccines, anthrax vaccines and rabies vaccines.

    The UVA research team involved in compiling the article that linked food allergies with alum found in certain vaccines consisted of highly-respected allergy and immunology specialists, including Dr. Scott P. Commins, who worked as as Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at UVA and is now an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina Allergy & Immunology Clinic, Dr. Alice E. W. Hoyt of UVA Allergy and Immunology, Alexander J. Schuyler of UVA, asthma and allergy specialist Dr. Peter W. Heymann, who leads UVA’s Heymann laboratory which is part of the Division of Pediatric Respiratory Medicine at the university, and Dr. Thomas A.E. Platts-Mills, who is a Professor of Medicine and Microbiology at UVA who completed his residency at Johns Hopkins University.

    The UVA team presented their findings in March this year at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology’s annual meeting in Los Angeles. Currently, a team at UVA is working on a new study looking for increases in food allergies after the hepatitis B, DTaP, Hib, PCV 13, and hepatitis A vaccines, all of which the study’s researchers say contain alum.

  • CDC GRANTS ITSELF MORE POWER to aprehend, detain, force treatment with 2017 QUARANTINE RULES

    CDC GRANTS ITSELF MORE POWER to aprehend, detain, force treatment with 2017 QUARANTINE RULES

    Last Fall Health Freedom Idaho called upon everyone to comment on the new proposed rule created by the CDC to GIVE the CDC more power and control in the process for apprehending and identifying people with contagious diseases, and the issuance of federal orders for quarantine, isolation, and conditional release were closely questioned by many of those who responded to the proposed rules.  The rule becomes effective this month. 

    Listen to Idaho Public Radio and their discussion

    How Will the New CDC Rules for Quarantine and Isolation Affect You?

    There are new U.S. government rules that can force travelers into quarantine or isolation if they are suspected of having a contagious disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published their revised rules explaining how they will intervene to protect the public from the spread of quarantinable communicable diseases such as Ebola.

    For those of us who prefer to minimize our contact with the conventional medical care system and its pharmaceutical products, these new rules should cause us to carefully consider our health status when traveling across state lines or traveling back to the United States during a CDC health emergency. If we have symptoms of illness that might be confused with a communicable disease, then it might be wise to carefully consider our travel plans.

    The rules were released on the last day of the Obama Administration, 1/19/2017, and will take effect on February 21, 2017. 

    The 4 problems with the CDC Rule: <From HealthAffairs.Org >

    1. First, the proposed regulation permits indefinite detention without the issuance of a formal public health order and with absolutely no due process protections. 
    Though the CDC has noted that it “does not expect that the typical public health apprehension will last longer than 72 hours,” the proposed regulations place no limit on how long officials may detain an individual while deciding whether to formally quarantine or isolate her.

    That means that a future administration could hold travelers—either returning from abroad at the airport or traveling across state lines—in government custody for days or weeks without providing an explanation or an opportunity for the individuals to challenge their detentions. The CDC must constrain this power by placing an upper limit of hours—not days—on the period under which government officials may detain an individual without serving a written order of quarantine or isolation. This reform is required by the Constitution and is sound policy, given that the threat of indefinite apprehension will serve as an impediment to recruiting volunteer health care workers.

    2. Second, the proposed regulation fails to clearly state that the federal government will not issue public health orders that restrict individuals’ liberty unless these orders are necessary and there are no less restrictive ways to protect public health.

    For example, during the last Ebola outbreak some states monitored the health of travelers returning from West Africa through daily check-ins by phone with a public health official, which is less restrictive than quarantine and proved just as effective. The Constitution prohibits the government from placing more onerous restrictions on individual liberties than is necessary—as determined by sound scientific evidence—to protect the public from the threat of disease.

    3. Third, the proposed regulation fails to guarantee quarantined individuals speedy access to courts, which provide an important check on the misuse of government power by ensuring that the government makes an adequate showing of scientific necessity. 
    Currently, the proposed regulations would allow a future administration to quarantine an individual for three days without providing any legal or medical justification for the quarantine before a neutral decision maker. Yet under the Constitution, absent emergency circumstances, the federal government must provide an individual with legal notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing before the government restricts the individual’s liberty. In emergency situations, the government must hold this hearing before a neutral decision maker within 72 hours of initiating the quarantine.

    4. Fourth, the proposed regulations would allow a future administration to perform any ‘medical examination’—no matter how invasive—without the individual’s consent, so long as the testing is “reasonably necessary to diagnose or confirm the presence or extent of infection.” 
    In fact, nowhere in the text of the proposed regulations does the CDC address issues of consent. Informed consent is a fundamental principle of medical ethics that should not be violated absent extraordinary circumstances in which no other alternative exists. Because placing an individual in isolated detention will always provide an alternative to a non-consensual, invasive medical examination, we can imagine no situation in which the CDC would be ethically (or legally) warranted in conducting a medical examination against an individual’s will.
    To prevent a future administration from violating the bodily integrity and autonomy of citizens through forced examinations, the CDC must explicitly require informed consent for all medical examinations and treatment, with the option of voluntary isolation in lieu of such procedures.

    In The News:

    How comfortable are you with these new protocols? 15,800 commented on the rules about their concerns, did you?

  • Label Check: We read the label for what we ingest. Time we did for what we inject.

    Label Check: We read the label for what we ingest. Time we did for what we inject.

    Informed Consent is the permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits. Health Freedom Idaho supports a individual’s right to informed consent and vaccine choice for families.  

    Find out about the common ingredients of vaccines, including formaldehyde, thiomersal, mercury, antibiotics, gelatin and adjuvants.

    Discover the ingredients in the vaccines that your doctor recommends. These trace amounts of toxins accumulate in our bodies causing devastation to our health. 

    Vaccine Ingredients and Manufacturer Information
    (alphabetical order by vaccine)

    I. VACCINES AND INGREDIENTS read vaccine inserts
    1. Adenovirus
    24. Polio
    25. Rabies
    27. Rubella
    31. Typhoid
  • Vaccines and Religious Exemption

    Vaccines and Religious Exemption

    Vaccine Exemptions Protect Religious Liberty.  The development of vaccine on the bodies of more than 80 aborted human beings, convicts individuals, from a variety of religious backgrounds, AGAINST the injection of abortion tainted vaccines including MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Chicken Pox and Hep A. All three vaccines (and more) are required for public, private, religious-based school enrollment.
    Preserving the religious exemption of vaccines for both school and employment protects our individual liberty. SB 1050 will clarify statute to allow parents to invoke their legal right to vaccine exemption without intimidation and discrimination.
     
    Has anyone told you they didn’t believe we could possibly have vaccines produced right here in America from aborted fetal cell lines?  Did anyone tell you it was a hoax?


    The fact that the Chickenpox, Hepatitis-A and MMR vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines, MRC-5 and WI-38 has never been hidden from the public.  The problem is that when parents go to their family doctors for vaccinations, who asks to see the product insert?  The one sheet flyer given to parents doesn’t list most of the possible side effects and none of the vaccine ingredients. Doctors, who have been administering the vaccines for years have never checked into the ingredients, although it has always been right at their fingertips.  And what would happen if they did?  They would read that the vaccine contains “residual DNA and proteins” and “components” of “MRC-5″, “WI-38″ (or both) “human diploid cell lines”.

    Click here for the Manufacturer’s package insert portion describing the fetal cell lines.



    SUMMARY: 
    The MRC-5 cell line was developed in September 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14 week fetus aborted for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old physically healthy woman. MRC-5 is a known source of human DNA in vaccines.

    The WI-38 human diploid cell line (RA 273) was a 16-week-old female baby (20 cm long) who was aborted in Sweden because the parents felt they had too many children. The baby was packed on ice and sent to the United States (speculation suggests without consent – which was common) where it was dissected. The use of WI-38 cells is a lucrative moneymaking business.

    The rubella vaccine currently used in the U.S. and in most countries was developed after an American researcher at the Wistar Institute cultured rubella virus from a fetus aborted because the mother was infected with rubella. This vaccine is called RA 27/3 because the rubella virus was isolated from the 27th aborted fetus sent to the Wistar Institute in the 1964 rubella outbreak. Eighty elective abortions (recorded) were involved in the research and final production of the current rubella vaccine: 21 from the original WI-1 through WI-26 fetal cell lines that failed, plus WI-38 itself, plus 67 from the attempts to isolate the rubella virus.”

    “PER C6 came from a healthy 18 week-old baby who was aborted for social reasons. This tumorigenic strain is being used to develop adenovirus, Ebola, influenza, malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV vaccines. Developers call it a “human designer cell” but what they really mean is “aborted baby cells.”

    The HEK293 cell line is derived from the kidneys of a healthy aborted fetus and is being used to develop new influenza vaccines.

    IMR-90 cell line came from a 16-week old female aborted baby 
    IMR-91 came from a male aborted baby. Both were created for vaccine production and functional references.

    WI-44 was derived from the lung of a three-month old surgically aborted fetus.

    WALVAX2 – Fetal cell line developed to replace MRC-5 and WI-38 because they are becoming too tumorigenic (causing too much cancer in children who receive vaccines made from them).
    You can’t be pro-life and pro-vaccine.
    #VaxXed #Truth #Science

    Which Vaccines contain Human DNA from Aborted Fetal Cells? (printable)
    find out more


    No, Aborted Fetal Cells were Not filtered out of the Final Vaccine:

    Editorials on Vaccine and Religion:

    Vaccines: a Religious Contention
    article on various tenants of faith and their reaction to aborted fetal cell vaccines

    Vaccine Risk Awareness
    article from UK on Catholic faith and aborted fetal cells and vaccines


    OPEN LETTER to ALL RELIGIOUS LEADERS in CALIFORNIA  RE: SB277 Government Mandated Vaccines for all children

    <printable verison>
    Printable Copy of the article: Vaccines, Abortion and Fetal Tissue

    Helpful Resources:

    Vaccine Summary sheet from vaccine rights attorney, Alan Phillips:  http://us8.campaign-archive1.com/?u=e05b7d7adb6e660d8cf0748f9&id=4f92ecc522&e=e4e3fa348e  (2nd link once you click this)

    The movie Silent Epidemic,  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4


    MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTED FETAL CELL SOURCES:

    Taken from the Coriell Cell Repository, a company that actually sells fetal (and other) tissue cell lines, is a complete scientific description of the cell lines and the information on the original abortions:

    MRC-5  Aborted Fetal Cell Line       
    WI-38 Aborted Fetal Cell Line

    More Aborted Fetal Cell Lines Used in Products and Product Testing

    PER C6 & HEK-293      
    IMR-90 and IMR-91

    And there is a plethora of information on many more abortions that were part of polio vaccine research.

    Read the document excerpts from the scientists themselves.



  • How Can the Public Health Department Get Away It…

    How Can the Public Health Department Get Away It…

    Senate Bill #1050
    Clarifies Section 39-4802 (2)Idaho Code that a parent has the legal right to enroll their child(ren) in Idaho schools, while maintaining their privacy, their right to medical confidentiality, and the right to opt out of providing IRIS-type vaccination information. 

    Parents’ rights, privacy, confidentiality, and the right to shield oneself from unjust incrimination are paramount to Idahoans and of utmost importance in maintaining liberty.  This bill will secure those natural rights.

    Idaho has clearly stated in existing laws that parents are legally able to opt out of some/all vaccines for their children when enrolling in daycare or public school.  The Public Health Department has created administrative procedures that intentionally discriminates against a minority group, violates their privacy, and denies their children access to schools when they opt to take their legally allowed vaccine exemption.

    1. IDAHO STATUES CLEARLY STATE: VACCINES ARE NOT MANDATED FOR DAYCARE or SCHOOLS.
    2. IDAHO STATUES CLEARLY STATE: PARENTS MAY SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT THEY ARE CHOOSING TO EXEMPT THEIR CHILD FROM SOME/ALL VACCINES.

    Department of Health will NOT ACCEPT the legally acceptable written statement from parents.

    Department of Health has created a form that violates family’s rights and in turn forces school officials to deny children entrance into schools

    • Parents are forced to sign IDHW’s mandatory form that demands parents state they are putting their children at risk to contracting disease that carry serious complications.
      EXEMPTION FORM http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/Health/Immunizations/School%20Exemption%20Form%20-%20English.pdf
    • IDHW’s form was intentionally created to gather data from parents for the purpose of submitting that data to a ‘voluntary’ vaccine tracking database. Removing parental right to privacy and legal option to OPT OUT of the registry.
    • The Health Department refuses to accept a legally acceptable signed parental affidavit. A blatant disregard for Idaho statue. Discriminating against families who choose to invoke their legal option to vaccine exemption.
     
    The Public Health department is getting away creating procedures that contradict the law and children are being denied access to daycare and schools.

    February 6th the Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard Health Freedom Idaho’s concerns and voted to have those concerns heard as bill #S 1050. <https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2017/legislation/S1050.pdf>

    <Listen Online Feb 6 Health and Welfare Committee starting at minute 19:00>
    http://lso.legislature.idaho.gov/MediaArchive/ShowMediaByCommittee.do 


    The purpose of this bill is to clarify Section 39-4802 (2)Idaho Code.

    The current language is as follows:

     (2) Any minor child whose parent or guardian has submitted assigned statement to school officials stating their objections on religious or other grounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

     Original Intent

    The original intent of this section was that an Idaho parent/ guardian may exercise their right to privacy and medical confidentiality by simply submitting a signed statement to school officials in

    order to invoke their right to exemption regarding the state-prescribed vaccination schedule for school enrollment.

     Rules Created Mandating Unjust Form

    Rules have since been created requiring a state health department form be mandated. The form that was created for this purpose contains unnecessary, possibly incriminating language that is far outside the scope of this section.

     

    Section 39-4804 Idaho Code is being disregarded in the forced use of the current mandatory exemption form. That section states in part:

     

    NOTIFICATION TO PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

     (b) Participation in the immunization registry is voluntary;Because the Idaho IRIS vaccine registry is voluntary, a parent is not requiredto disclose vaccination status to the state.

     Form Forces Parents to Give Up Rights or Child’s Education

    By mandating the current exemption form, which listsindividual vaccines and demands confidential medical information, parents arenot able to exercise their right to privacy and exemption without facingenrollment denial by schools. Clearly this form does not align with theintentions of the current statutes.

     This Bill Will Re-secure Idahoan’s Rights to Privacy, Confidentiality,& Avoidance of Unjust Incrimination

     This bill would modify for clarification Section 39-4802 (2)to read:

     (2) Any minor child whose parent or guardian has submitted asigned statement to school officials stating their objections on religious orother grounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. The signedstatement may appear in a letter from the parent or guardian and is notrequired to be made on a form furnished by the state board of health andwelfare, a school, or another entity.

     This clarifies that a parent has the right to enroll their child(ren) in Idaho schools, while maintaining their privacy, their right to medical confidentiality, and the right to opt out of providing IRIS-type vaccination information. Parents’ rights, privacy, confidentiality, and the right to shield oneself from unjust incrimination are paramount to Idahoans and of utmost importance in maintaining liberty.  This bill will secure those natural rights.

  • SB1050 Immunization Exemption Form

    SB1050 Immunization Exemption Form

    SUPPORT SB 1050 for Immunization Exemption Form COMPLIANCE
    Media Contact:  Sarah @ exemptions@healthfreedomidaho.com

    IDAHO STATUTES CLEARLY STATE: VACCINES ARE NOT MANDATED FOR DAYCARE or SCHOOLS. LAWS CLEARLY STATE A PARENT’S WRITTEN STATEMENT IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION. The Public Health Department refuses to accept a parents’ written affidavit, which leads many to wonder HOW IS THAT LEGAL?

    Idaho’s Health & Welfare Department created a mandatory immunization form that falls FAR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CURRENT STATUTES and is discriminatory to the minority of parents who legally choose to OPT OUT of the full CDC vaccine schedule. Parents are forced to sign IDHW’s mandatory form that demands parents state that they are putting their children at risk. No parent should be forced to sign a form that is self-incriminatory in order to enroll their child into a daycare program or public school.

    The Public Health department is getting away with creating their own rules and children are being denied access to daycare and schools.Regardless of your opinion on the efficacy of vaccines, it is unacceptable to allow the Department of Health to mandate a discriminatory form for school enrollment that violates privacy and is potentially self-incriminating. 

    LAW STATES Idaho Code 39-4802: Any minor child whose parent or guardian has submitted a signed statement to school officials stating their objections on religious or other grounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.  Medical exemptions are also allowed.

    Our Current Immunization Exemption Laws Clearly States:

    • Idaho Statutes permit you, as an individual or parent the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate your child.  
    • The statute does not require you to disclose what other grounds your refusal to immunization is. As with any medical decision, the decision to vaccinate is a right of the individual or parent.
    • The State of Idaho, your doctor and public health employees cannot force you or your child to be vaccinated.
    • Your child cannot be excluded from a school or public program because you have exercised your right to not vaccinate.

      Just line out and initial it? NOPE!

      Health Freedom Idaho Surveys show that most schools have denied children access to school when parents have submitted the legally acceptable parental statement of vaccine exemption. There are many schools refusing to accept the form if it has been altered in any way.  

      This discriminatory action on the part of schools (who feel their hands are tied due to Health and Welfare Administrative policy) has caught the attention of Health Freedom Idaho.  While correspondence from the Office of the Attorney General and Legislators have shown that there is in fact a discrepancy in the legal statutes and the scope of the form required by IDHW there has been no challenge to change the current administrative procedures to fall back in line with the law.
      SEE:  Letter 1.    Letter 2. 

      The Law Clearly States Exemptions are Permitted and the legally acceptable process a parent can follow.
      The Administrative Policies of the Health and Welfare Department clearly fall OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LAW.

      IDHW’s MANDATORY IMMUNIZATION FORM IS DISCRIMINATORY.

      Health Freedom Idaho presented proposed clarifying legislation on February 6 to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. They confirmed that indeed the Idaho Health and Welfare Department’s form falls outside the scope of the law. A new bill Senate Bill #1050 was created and will now work its way through the legislative process.

      Health Freedom Idaho’s summary of the bill’s purpose:

      This clarifies that a parent has the right to enroll their child(ren) in Idaho schools, while maintaining their privacy, their right to medical confidentiality, and the right to opt out of providing IRIS-type vaccination information. Parents’ rights, privacy, confidentiality, and the right to shield oneself from unjust incrimination are paramount to Idahoans and of utmost importance in maintaining liberty. This bill will secure those natural rights.

    • CONTACT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMITTEES Today tell them YES on SB1050 the Health Department should be required to comply with the existing statues allowing parents to opt out of vaccines using a signed statement. 

    IDAHO STATUTES CLEARLY STATE: VACCINES ARE NOT MANDATED FOR DAYCARE or SCHOOLS. LAWS CLEARLY STATE A PARENT’S WRITTEN STATEMENT IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION. The Public Health Department refuses to accept a parents’ written affidavit, which leads many to wonder HOW IS THAT LEGAL?
    Idaho’s Health & Welfare Department created a mandatory immunization form that falls FAR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CURRENT STATUTES and is discriminatory to the minority of parents who legally choose to OPT OUT of the full CDC vaccine schedule. Parents are forced to sign IDHW’s mandatory form that demands parents state that they are putting their children at risk. No parent should be forced to sign a form that is self-incriminatory in order to enroll their child into a daycare program or public school.
    The Public Health department is getting away with creating their own rules and children are being denied access to daycare and schools.


    UPDATE!! ACT NOW!


    There is A LOT going on behind the scenes to shut down the bill SB 1050.
    (SB 1050 is the HFI sponsored bill that would keep the Health Departments administrative policy in line with the current statute.)
    It appears we are poking a bear (aka the Health Department) that is use to getting its own way! In order to protect liberty, we need a GIANT response. The Health Department is making every attempt to not only shut down our efforts to keep them ‘in line’ with existing statutes. Tell our elected officials they MUST SUPPORT SB 1050.

    This is easy with the Testify App

    Click here to get Testifi on Google Play.

    Click here to get Testifi in the Apple App Store.

    and send a quick message “Support SB 1050” to:
    1. The Governor
    2. Your District Legislators
    3 The Health and Welfare Committees 

    SB 1050 keeps administrative policy from usurping Idaho law. It allows parents to make an informed choice to opt out of vaccines without discrimination, revealing private medical information and without being entered into a tracking database without consent.
    LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

    If you don’t have Testifi here’s phone/email list: 
    Governor Butch Otter Office
    Email
    334-2100

    Senate Health Committee which approved the RS to go to print as a bill

    Agenbroad 332-1329 jagenbroad@senate.idaho.gov
    Anthon 332-1346 kanthon@senate.idaho.gov
    Foreman 332-1405 dforeman@senate.idaho.gov
    Harris 332-1429 mharris@senate.idaho.gov
    Heider 332-1347 lheider@senate.idaho.gov
    Jordan 3321412 mjordan@senate.idaho.gov
    Lee 332-1325 alee@senate.idaho.gov
    Martin 332-1358 fmartin@senate.idaho.gov
    Souza 332-1322 msouza@senate.idaho.gov

    House Health Committee

    Blanksma 332-1054 mblanksma@house.idaho.gov
    Chew 332-1049 schew@house.idaho.gov
    Gibbs 332-1042 mgibbs@house.idaho.gov
    Hanks 332-1056 khanks@house.idaho.gov
    Hixon 332-1052 bhixon@house.idaho.gov
    Kingsley 332-1133 mkingsley@house.idaho.gov
    Packer 332-1045 kpacker@house.idaho.gov
    Perry 332-1044 cperry@house.idaho.gov
    Redman 332-1070 eredman@house.idaho.gov
    Rubel 332-1034 irubel@house.idaho.gov
    VanderWoude 332-1037 jvanderwoude@house.idaho.gov
    Wood 332-1074 fwood@house.idaho.gov
    Zollinger 332-1073 bzollinger@house.idaho.gov

    SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY 


    Additional Resources:

    The purpose of this bill is to clarify Section 39-4802 (2)Idaho Code.

    The current language is as follows:

     

    (2) Any minor child whose parent or guardian has submitted signed statement to school officials stating their objections on religious or other grounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

     

    Original Intent

    The original intent of this section was that an Idaho parent/ guardian may exercise their right to privacy and medical confidentiality by simply submitting a signed statement to school officials in

    order to invoke their right to exemption regarding the state-prescribed vaccination schedule for school enrollment.

     

    Rules Created Mandating Unjust Form

    Rules have since been created requiring a state health department form be mandated. The form that was created for this purpose contains unnecessary, possibly incriminating language that is far outside the scope of this section.

     

    Section 39-4804 Idaho Code is being disregarded in the forced use of the current mandatory exemption form. That section states in part:

     

    NOTIFICATION TO PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

     

    (b) Participation in the immunization registry is voluntary;Because the Idaho IRIS vaccine registry is voluntary, a parent is not required to disclose vaccination status to the state.

     

    Form Forces Parents to Give Up Rights or Child’s Education

    By mandating the current exemption form, which lists individual vaccines and demands confidential medical information, parents are not able to exercise their right to privacy and exemption without facing enrollment denial by schools. Clearly this form does not align with the intentions of the current statutes.

     

    This Bill Will Re-secure Idahoan’s Rights to Privacy, Confidentiality,& Avoidance of Unjust Incrimination

     

    This bill would modify for clarification Section 39-4802 (2)to read:

     

    (2) Any minor child whose parent or guardian has submitted a signed statement to school officials stating their objections on religious or other grounds shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. The signed statement may appear in a letter from the parent or guardian and is not required to be made on a form furnished by the state board of health and welfare, a school, or another entity.

     

    This clarifies that a parent has the right to enroll their child(ren) in Idaho schools, while maintaining their privacy, their right to medical confidentiality, and the right to opt out of providing IRIS-type vaccination information. Parents’ rights, privacy, confidentiality, and the right to shield oneself from unjust incrimination are paramount to Idahoans and of utmost importance in maintaining liberty. This bill will secure those natural rights.

  • Why There Should Be Religious Exemptions For Vaccines

    Why There Should Be Religious Exemptions For Vaccines


    What’s in your Vaccines? tinyurl.com/excipientlist from the CDC

    RA273 (Rubella Abortus  /27th sample/ 3 tissues samples)
    In the 1960’s, to culture LIVE VIRUSES. They need to have live human tissue to grow on.
    26 babies were aborted because doctors told the mothers that due to the exposure to rubella their babies were going to be deformed. Those babies WERE NOT infected with rubella and they died because ‘science was wrong’ and the ‘doctors made a mistake’. It wasn’t until the 27th baby that they found a child actually INFECTED with the rubella virus. They used that child as spare parts. Then they had to find a suitable cell line to replicate that virus. 80 abortions were used to make the Rubella Vaccine.

    WI-38 human diploid cell line
    The WI-38 human diploid cell line (RA 273) was a 16-week-old female baby (20 cm long) who was aborted in Sweden because the parents felt they had too many children. The baby was packed on ice and sent to the United States (speculation suggests without consent – which was common) where it was dissected. The use of WI-38 cells is a lucrative moneymaking business.

    The rubella vaccine currently used in the U.S. and in most countries was developed after an American researcher at the Wistar Institute cultured rubella virus from a fetus aborted because the mother was infected with rubella. This vaccine is called RA 27/3 because the rubella virus was isolated from the 27th aborted fetus sent to the Wistar Institute in the 1964 rubella outbreak. Eighty elective abortions (recorded) were involved in the research and final production of the current rubella vaccine: 21 from the original WI-1 through WI-26 fetal cell lines that failed, plus WI-38 itself, plus 67 from the attempts to isolate the rubella virus.”

    MRC-5 cell line
    The MRC-5 cell line was developed in September 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14 week fetus aborted for psychiatric reasons from a 27 year old physically healthy woman. MRC-5 is a known source of human DNA in vaccines. 

    The fact that the Chickenpox, Hepatitis-A and MMR vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cell lines, MRC-5 and WI-38 has never been hidden from the public.  The problem is that when parents go to their family doctors for vaccinations, who asks to see the product insert?

    The Vaxxed bus makes a special stop in Fort Wayne, Indiana to talk to Independent Researcher Marcella Piper-Terry about religious exemptions from vaccines and aborted fetal cells. Interview by Polly Tommey and camera by Joshua Coleman and Anu Vaidya with editing by Joshua Coleman. Published on Jan 13, 2017
    MORE RESEARCH:  They would read that the vaccine contains “residual DNA and proteins” and “components” of “MRC-5″, “WI-38″ (or both) “human diploid cell lines”. Click here for the Manufacturer’s package insert portion describing the fetal cell lines.

    This article originally appeared at: https://youtu.be/RU2BDZL3OFY.
  • STARTS TOMMORROW: Expert Panel Presents Docu-Series on Vaccines

    STARTS TOMMORROW: Expert Panel Presents Docu-Series on Vaccines

    REGISTER NOW TO WATCH THE 9-PART DOCU-SERIES, “VACCINES REVEALED.”
    First Name *
    Email *

    EPISODE 1 AIRS JANUARY 10TH

    FINALLY,
    A SERIES THAT ANSWERS
    THE REAL QUESTIONS
    ABOUT VACCINES;

    THEIR SAFETY, EFFICACY, AND HOW THEY REALLY IMPACT YOUR HEALTH.

    This exclusive documentary series is about to be unveiled for FREE viewing on January 10th – 18th.
    You’ll discover the most cutting edge news and just released evidence  — from over twenty of the world’s authorities and experts.

    YOU WON’T HEAR THIS ANYWHERE ELSE.

    You’ll be on the forefront of the latest discoveries and get released evidence from over a dozen of the world’s authorities and experts.

    Watch this exclusive release in its entirety – just sign up below today.

    HEAR FROM LEADING EXPERTS
    DURING THIS EXCLUSIVE EVENT

    YES, YOU READ THAT RIGHT…

    According to the HSRA (Government Website) 88 of the 108 cases settled the first quarter of 2016 were for injuries and deaths due to the flu vaccine, making the flu vaccine the most dangerous vaccine in the U.S., harming and killing more people than all the other vaccines put together.

    It’s practically guaranteed that mandated vaccinations will affect our kids, our grandchildren, our parents, our friends and loved ones.

    It’s a horrifying thought, but it’s the reality we’re facing.

    Children’s lives are at stake, and they are suffering and even dying due to ignorance and misinformation about what vaccine risks and injuries really are.

    OUR MISSION

    Our mission is to prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the right of every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their families.

    We will not stop until the entire world is educated and empowered with knowledge exposing the truth about vaccines.

    The all-or-nothing dynamic that exists with the vaccine hubbub completely polarized the issue and prevents any reasonable discussion from taking place. Either you accept all of the CDC’s recommended 69 doses of 16 vaccines between birth and age 18, or you want to bring back measles, polio, and probably the black plague.

    WILL YOU JOIN US?

    Over the last decade, we’ve produced award-winning documentaries providing answers and revealing alternative health solutions. We’ve traveled the world, interviewed the top authorities and filmed thousands of hours to bring the essential facts about GMO’s, Big Pharma and Vaccines to the forefront.

    We’ve launched 3 full-length documentaries on these subjects, and have had over a million people watch our award-winning documentary films online.

    Mandatory vaccinations are about to open up a new land-grab for government control. Other medical issues seem to pale in comparison to forcibly medicating millions against their will. Voluntary and informed consent are essential in our individual rights, and without it, we do not possess true freedom.

    We have dozens of luminaries and experts presenting the absolute best and most up to date advice and material for parents who really want to know what is going on behind the scenes.

    REGISTER NOW TO WATCH THE 9-PART DOCU-SERIES, “VACCINES REVEALED.”
    First Name *
    Email *

    This article originally appeared at: http://www.vaccinesrevealed.com/.
  • Merck Admits Shingles Vaccine Can Cause Eye Damage…and Shingles

    Merck Admits Shingles Vaccine Can Cause Eye Damage…and Shingles

    Merck Admits Shingles Vaccine Can Cause Eye Damage…and Shingles

    Posted by Claire Dwoskin on Aug 30, 2016 1:33:32 PM

    Two important FDA approved changes to the warning label of Merck Pharmaceutical’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax, have been made since the controversial drug was introduced in 2006.  The first was in August 2014, when, in addition to potentially causing chickenpox, another side effect was added: shingles! That’s right. The vaccine that had been – and continues to be — aggressively marketed to prevent seniors from contracting this excruciating condition was found to actually cause shingles in some individuals.

    In February 2016, the FDA approved a label change to warn those who prescribe the Zostavax vaccine of another potential side effect: “Eye Disorders: necrotizing retinitis.” Vaccine Insert from FDA

    Vision Damage linked to Shingles Vaccine

    This disorder, as well as keratitis, causes inflammation and scarring of the eye tissue and can lead to permanent vision loss if not treated quickly. It was reported by WebMD 20 individuals (children and adults) developed keratitis within a month of receiving a chickenpox or shingles vaccine. Keratitis symptoms for adults developed within 24 days of vaccination, while symptoms in children began within 14 days of vaccination.

    “Researchers concluded there is a probable relationship between the vaccine and the eye inflammation, though the study wasn’t designed to prove the vaccine actually caused the condition,” according to an article posted by the personal injury law firm of Matthews & Associates.

    While researchers don’t know why the shingles shot may cause keratitis, the condition has been linked to autoimmune disorders.  The connection between vaccines and autoimmune disease has been widely acknowledged, most recently by medical researchers worldwide in a compilation of studies published in 2015 in the medical textbook, Vaccines & Autoimmunity

    Insignificant Effectiveness of Zostavax

    According to the authors of a Health Sciences Institute (HSI) article in January, 2016, “UCLA researchers found that only one in 175 people who get the vaccine will be able to dodge a shingles flare-up.”  While Merck claims Zostavax is 50% effective, in the placebo group, 3.3 percent of the study participants developed shingles, compared to 1.6 percent in the vaccine group. So, while that is a 50% difference, the real, absolute risk reduction is just 1.7 percentage points.

    More Shingles Vaccine “Side Effects”

    According to its current warning label, Zostovax’s most common side effects are “headache, redness, pain, itching, swelling, hard lump, warmth, or bruising where the shot was given.”  However, more serious “side effects” include:

    • allergic reactions, which may be serious and may include difficulty in breathing or swallowing
    • chickenpox
    • fever
    • hives at the injection site
    • joint pain
    • muscle pain
    • nausea
    • rash
    • rash at the injection site
    • shingles
    • swollen glands near the injection site (that may last a few days to a few weeks)

    Nevertheless, despite its questionable effectiveness at preventing shingles (and the fact that it can cause shingles!) and the serious side effects it can produce, online sites funded by the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., WebMD) and neighborhood pharmacies continue to ominously advise seniors to get the shingles vaccines – at a cost of $150-$300 per injection to insurance companies.  Zostavax is clearly effective at something – and there’s nothing “potential” about the revenue it’s generating for its manufacturer, promoters and distributors.