|
WJGR Interview
|
|
| WJGR 1320 AM Talk Radio Interview |
"Down to Business with Andy Johnson"
June 19 and August 14, 2002 |
| Bioterrorism Legislation & Mandatory Vaccination |
- Tell me about yourself
- I am a physician here on the First Coast in the alternative health care field, specifically Chinese Medicine, and I am President of Vaccine Awareness of North Florida, a non-profit educational organization founded to promote public awareness of the fundamental issues involved in matters concerning vaccination.
Through this organization, we endeavor to prevent vaccine injury and death through education; we promote ethics in medicine and in journalistic reporting; and, most of all, we are trying to protect the right of people to make their own fully informed medical decisions.
- As a physician I work with people of all ages and with a variety of health problems, but I enjoy working with children who, for the most part, present chronic immune dysfunction related illnesses, and I have seen first-hand some of the negative aspects of vaccination.
- Why are you here today?
- I am here today because as both a physician and an avid defender of civil rights, I am deeply concerned about the medical consequences as well as the consequences for our system of government with the enactment into law of the bioterrorism legislation.
Here in Florida this legislation was innocuously entitled Public Health Emergency but, basically, it was a copy of legislation that was designed by the CDC and promoted by HHS to all states and it is referred to on the federal level as the Model Emergency Health Powers Act.
In its original version, this legislation provided a template for a unified government response to acts of bioterrorism, granting, among other things, new police powers to unelected officials and allowing for the use of any means to force medical procedures upon people in the event of a declared public health emergency.
- As you know, Andy, each year a considerable amount of legislation is signed into law without much fanfare or public scrutiny.
When the legislation changes the nature of our government, as SB 1262 was designed to do, it is not only proper for the public to act discriminately, but it is imperative that they do so.
This legislation has hidden consequences for civil rights that the public is either uninformed or misinformed about, and unfortunately, it has not received the attention that it deserves.
- Jeb Bush signed this bill into law on May 14.
There were a number of versions of this legislation that both houses reviewed during the last legislative session, but the one that made it to Jeb Bush's desk was SB 1262 and passed unanimously, which means that either our representatives did not read the bill or they are out of their minds.
- What reasons do you have for being against this new law that is designed to protect the American people?
- First of all, let's make an important distinction here: the "purpose" of the legislation is to protect the American people, however it is "designed" to protect the government's power over people.
There is an illusion here that its design serves the purpose, however this is not the case.
- Then, let me say that by all means our public health agencies should have a sound, workable emergency plan in place in the event of bioterrorism attacks.
In developing plans and legislation to protect Americans, however, government policies must always respect the dignity and rights of individuals, and no policy should place the life and liberty of citizens in the hands of an elite few who will have power to take these rights from citizens without their consent.
- As for the reasons for being against this new law, this law poses a real threat to civil liberties in the following ways:
- First, and I think foremost, the public health bill that Jeb Bush signed into law on May 14 grants the state health officer the dictatorial power to use any means necessary to force medical procedures on individuals.
Not only is this a civil rights violation, it is morally wrong.
- Second, The plan fails to provide adequate judicial or legislative review of the emergency declaration while protecting those empowered with police powers from liability:
- By passing this legislation, the state legislature effectively abdicated its governing authority and eroded the checks and balances of divided government.
This bill, as I said, passed unanimously -- no Senator expressed concern about these civil rights violations or about the consequences to our system of government.
- And here is something that many people, if they knew about this, would find appalling: The public health emergency shields the people empowered by this legislation as well as subordinates working at their direction from ANY LIABILITY.
No governor, legislator, public health officer or other agent of the state can be held accountable for deaths or health damage suffered by state enforced medical procedures (in this case, quarantined or vaccinated victims).
- Third, the plan required under this act gives government agents very broad powers that are not specifically spelled out -- meaning it uses vague language to define very key concepts, like "what constitutes an emergency" and what the definition of "terrorism" is:
- These distinctions may not seem important to people, but when a key concept like "emergency" is broadly defined, it gives government bureaucrats the power to declare anything an emergency (from HIV infection, to West Nile Virus, to a few cases of influenza).
You may think this could never happen in America, but the sad reality is this lack of clarity sets a dangerous precedence for future laws -- so you get "incrementalism" -- and at some point the original intent, which may be innocent, is not so innocent anymore.
- What are the arguments for this policy?
- First of all, let me say that virtually all states already have laws dealing with outbreaks of disease, namely quarantine and isolation.
In this case, we are allowing the CDC and state health departments to use fear to take away more of our liberties.
This law, which makes it legal to force medical procedures on people without their consent, is a clear indication that public health officials want the sole authority to decide who will live and who will die and under what conditions.
When we lose the right to make informed medical decisions for ourselves and our families, we have a tyranny of public health.
- As for the arguments supporting this policy, the only justification for this policy -- the reason the public is willing to role over and play dead in this particular matter of bioterrorism -- is the pervasive belief that the public must be vaccinated at all costs, whether the cost is loss of freedom and a more powerful government or the lives of those who are adversely affected by vaccination.
- Are you against vaccination?
- As a physician, I have sound medical reasons for advising caution in the matter of vaccination, and there is independently researched data that suggests they can be harmful.
There is an important distinction between supporting vaccination and advocating mandatory vaccination.
Most people believe it is a noble public service due to the perceived benefit of disease prevention, particularly in the event of a disease epidemic, however this view does not necessarily translate into the conviction that people must be compelled to accept a medical procedure without their informed consent.
- I do think vaccines can be useful, so in that respect, I am not against vaccination.
Current vaccine policy, however, is reckless, to say the least, and the policy set forth in this public health emergency law is very dangerous.
- In fact, with regards to this law, while a fearful and complacent public may assume that it is the function of the government to protect "the nation" in this manner, a careful analysis of this bill reveals that this kind of protection comes with a price-tag that constitutes the most serious threat to the ethical standards for medical interventions since the Nuremberg Code was issued following World War II -- that is what I am against.
- The Nuremberg Code has been the centerpiece of bio ethics in medicine since WWII -- for everything but vaccination.
- What the CDC is doing is using the idea of "national security" to avoid legal liability and public outrage, and they are using deception to avoid the risk of resistance if the truth were told about vaccinations.
- Are you against the smallpox vaccine?
- Most people are not aware that the smallpox vaccine is purported to be the most highly reactive vaccine that has even been used in humans.
According to both the World Health Organization and the CDC, this vaccine has a high incidence of adverse side effects.
In fact, the risk of adverse events is sufficiently high that mass vaccination is not warranted if there is no or little real risk of exposure.
- The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of 15 advisors that sets vaccine policy, in June recommended to Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson that mass vaccination NOT be forced or even offered to those who want it.
- A member of that panel of Chief of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr. Paul Offit, is quoted as saying, "I would not give that vaccine to my children now."
- What are the risks of the smallpox vaccine?
- One of the reasons the Pentagon stopped vaccinating troops for smallpox is because vaccinated people can spread the virus to others.
This is not just another vaccine.
And, as with all vaccines, this vaccination will not guarantee immunity against the disease it is purported to.
- Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases has said that the American population appears to be more vulnerable to dangerous smallpox vaccine reactions now that it was when civilians stopped being vaccinated in 1972.
A large and growing number of Americans now have immune systems that are either depressed, as in the case of HIV & AIDS, or have been chemically suppressed during treatments for cancer and other autoimmune diseases, which, by the way, are now rampant and growing in epidemic proportions in our children since the early 1970's.
- It is estimated that at least 10% of the US population (more than 28 million people) have eczema.
There are 184,000 organ recipients, 850,000 individuals with diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection or AIDS, and 8.5 million people with cancer.
An even more extensive list of people at risk is the untold millions who are taking immunosuppressive drugs such as corticosteroids.
Prednisone and Medrol, given to both adults and children, are prescribed for dozens of conditions including but not limited to: asthma; emphysema; allergies; Crohn's disease; MS; herniated spinal discs, acute muscular pain syndromes; all types of rheumatoid and other autoimmune diseases.
All of these people would be at risk for serious complications from contact with a vaccinated individual.
- Even when given to health people, the vaccine frequently produces dangerous reactions because it uses a live vaccinia virus.
Estimates vary, but it is estimated that 1 in every 80,000 to 150,000 recipients of the smallpox vaccine will experience a severe reaction, including overwhelming infection such as encephalitis or brain infection.
w A 1992 study in Russia reported neurological complications at a rate of 1 in 3,200 persons vaccinated.
Another 1 of 500,000 will die as a direct result of the vaccine.
- Now this may not seem to be such a big deal when you consider how the vaccine is purported to save millions of lives, but where death or serious injury happens to a person who did not choose to take the risk but, rather, was forced to comply, you then have a form of state-sponsored terrorism.
- Are there other organizations like you that are sounding off on this?
- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) urges that we emphasize our ability to mitigate the situation instead of expanding powers to coerce.
- Better laboratories, stockpiles of vaccines, drugs, medical equipment, supplies, protective gear, decontamination equipment, improved training -- all these things will help us prepare for a public health emergency.
- Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for AAPS - reminds us that, even in midst of latest Anthrax scare, few postal workers elected to be vaccinated, but had this been an emergency under MEHPA guidelines, an unelected public health official might have required it.
He adds that if drug companies have no liability, there is no incentive to improve vaccines.
He also warns of the dangers of quarantines to people who are sick.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) urges that we take a more deliberative approach in crafting effective publich health policy without sacrificing the rights and liberties of individuals
- They point out that the intention of the drafters of the MEHPA is to push Americans closer to government run health care and to do so in the name of the common good.
ALEC says that this legislation ignores the key role the private sector could play in responding to crisis situations and assumes that Americans should rely on the government.
- The Cato Institute, a non-partisan public policy think tank, advocates that we make smallpox vaccination immediately available for people WHO WANT THEM, the emphasis being on "informed consent rights."
- Whether it be smallpox or chickenpox, these organizations above all stress the importance of voluntary compliance and fully informed consent.
Informed Consent is particularly important because, for example in the case of smallpox:
- the old vaccine was never subjected to controlled clinical trials;
- the new vaccine will not have to be proven effective in humans;
- standards for safety will be lowered to fast-track production; and
- most appalling, vaccine manufacturers, as well as health-care providers, will be protected from liability for any vaccine-induced injuries or deaths, which even the pro-vaccine and pro-forced vaccination camps agree are likely to occur.
- What are other states doing about this MEHPA?
- When this model law was initially promoted to the states, there were four states that quickly accepted it the way it was originally drafted in October 23.
The original version granted the government incredible sweeping powers, among them forced vaccination for everyone.
By December, however, alert people and organizations said "Hold on!" (they actually read the bill) and raised concerns about the coercive intent of this legislation.
In many states the legislation either died in committee or was otherwise shelved.
A second version was drafted in December -- this one does not make vaccination mandatory -- but this is NOT the one Jeb Bush signed.
- So, the folks who dreamed this thing up now recommend a MUCH more moderate approach.
James Hodge is one of these guys.
James Hodge, Center for Law and the Public's Health, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health - testified on the need for and evolution of the Model Act, said there were no compulsory requirements with the new improved version, he conceded that the section in the original version on "Protection of Persons," especially regarding vaccination and treatment, was one of the most controversial items in the bill; he emphasized that there are provisions now for quarantine or isolation of those who refuse for any reason (Curiously, he did not mentioned how the first draft came to declare criminal the people who might refuse).
- As of July, seven states passed portions of the MEHPA while more than 14 states rejected it.
Surprisingly -- and this is why I am here today -- the worst version of this bill is the one that was passed in Republican-controlled Florida.
- What makes Florida's version so unique, and so uniquely bad, is that some unelected official from the public health department, not the elected governor, may declare an emergency and then this health department is empowered to use law enforcement to forcibly quarantine or by "any means necessary" vaccinate, without any recognized exceptions -- So here are three very big red flags:
- an unelected bureaucrat can over-ride a physician's recommendations or orders that a high-risk patient NOT receive a vaccine;
- unelected bureaucrats may do all of this without approval by the governor;
- they may do so at gun-point; and
- no person acting on behalf of this kind of directive has any liability whatsoever for damage.
- So, the people who actually drafted this model legislation, as it turns out (after outrage from some quarters of the country), are more moderate than our own governor and legislature.
- When you refuse to vaccinate, aren't you putting the health of others in jeopardy?
(Caller claims that because we are fighting a war people should be forced to vaccinate if the government says they should be)
- First of all, virtually all states already have laws dealing with outbreaks of disease -- namely, quarantine and isolation.
(Quarantine, by the way, is not the same as a medical procedure and does not violate the Nuremberg code of biomedical ethics).
- Second, the justification for forced vaccination (actually, there is no justification for this, but people "think" there is) -- the reason the public is willing to role over and play dead in this particular matter -- is because of the pervasive belief that the public MUST be vaccinated at all costs (whether the cost is loss of freedom and a more powerful government or whether the cost is the lives of those who are adversely affected by vaccination).
Why must they be vaccinated?
Because conventional wisdom says that mass vaccination confers "herd immunity" -- in other words vaccinated people stop the rate of disease transmission -- kind of like a firewall.
- This pertinent question by the caller deserves more discussion.
A key observation, however, is this: The term "herd immunity" refers to the idea that if a large percentage of a population is vaccinated, then those few who are NOT vaccinated will be protected because the disease cannot become epidemic.
This only holds true if there is good compliance (high vaccination rates).
When large segments of a population become non-compliant, herd immunity no longer protects those NOT vaccinated.
In other words (and this is KEY) -- if vaccination works, as we are led to believe, then the vaccinated are protected -- they are NOT put in jeopardy by those who are NOT vaccinated.
Herd immunity is for the benefit of those who are NOT vaccinated.
- The eradication of smallpox epidemics is "purported" proof that vaccination programs are successful.
Yet the unreported history of smallpox (which time did not permit me to go into) is replete with evidence that vaccination against smallpox actually ALSO caused deaths and did not prevent the disease from infecting people.
(I pointed out to a caller that one of the reasons the Pentagon stopped vaccinating troops for smallpox was for this reason -- the vaccinated were spreading the virus to others).
This has also been the case with the Polio vaccine.
- You need to remember, and I think this is so key, that the two reasons mass vaccination for smallpox is not happening at this time is because (1) the damage it will cause, and (2) the liability -- neither the government or the pharmaceutical companies want the lawsuits that will come -- which is why they included in the MEHPA that they will be EXEMPT from liability when they do forcibly vaccinate.
- Regarding forced medical treatment without informed consent, let me tell you about a recent case from Canada:
- St. Peter's Health Care System vs. CUPE, the Union.
This case was a result of a Union action before a Board of Arbitration in the matter of Policy and Flu Vaccinations at a hospital in Canada, and was decided on April 17, 2002.
The Hospital wanted employees to get the flu vaccine if there was an outbreak (defined as 2 or more patients). . ."every staff member will either have had a flu shot or will be agreeable to be treated by Amantadine.
If they do not do so, they will be suspended from work without pay until the outbreak subsides."
The conclusion of the judgment was that "Everyone from arbitrators to the Supreme Court of Canada has found that enforced medical treatment is an assault.
It is an invasion of the person and it is an assault and therefore prohibited."
"It is the view of this Board that in the circumstances cited above, suspending employees (non-disciplinary) for refusing to undergo medical treatment is a violation of their common law rights.
Virtually all the court cases, including Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeals, find that enforced medical treatment is an assault if there is no consent."
- Let me add that given the risks of vaccination, quarantine is the safer alternative because it also stops the rate of disease transmission.
(hint: there is no profit in quarantine; the money is in vaccines)
- Let me emphasize that the best way to protect all citizens without infringing on an individual's freedom of conscience or right to make informed medical decisions for themselves and their families is to have an adequate supply of vaccines FOR THOSE WHO WANT THEM.
- What about other vaccinations?
- The fundamental issue with all mandatory vaccination has to do with civil rights.
Vaccination is Modern Medicine's biggest achievement in the war against disease.
When it comes to disease prevention, it is readily assumed by the public that a vaccine is the obvious answer to all our health problems.
No thought is give to the complex manner in which a vaccine affects the body.
- There are some compelling facts people should be aware of:
- Most people are unaware that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 1.2 billion dollars in damages to families of vaccine-injured or vaccine deaths since 1986 -- and they turn away three out of four vaccine victims to cope on their own.
- The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System receives over 1000 reports per month of adverse reactions -- and both doctors and CDC officials admit that only a fraction (less that 10%) of adverse incidents are reported.
One of the reasons for this is because this is a passive reporting system -- doctors are not required to report them.
Why do you suppose that is?
Could it be they don't want to know.
Could it be that they don't want you to know?
- Vaccination is experimental.
There have been no long term safety studies done -- (there are a number of Institute of Medicine reports that deal with the poor research into vaccine safety and adverse effects; and there have been numerous Congressional Hearings into this matter as well.)
- Because vaccination is a medical procedure with known risks, compulsory vaccination, whether it be for smallpox of chickenpox, is unethical.
It is the most flagrant violation of individual rights in the history of the United States.
- You know, the anthrax vaccine has been extremely controversial -- and to be fair, we should spend another hour talking about the issues surrounding that fiasco.
Given our lack of time today, however, let me strongly recommend to you and your listeners a fabulous book recently published: This is book is called, Anthrax, A Deadly Shot in the Dark, written by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Heemstra, an F-16 Fighter Squadron Commander with a successful military career spanning twenty years and who had 15 combat mission in the Middle East.
Tom has conducted extensive research into the safety and effects of the military's Anthrax Vaccine Program.
Heemstra unmasks the deadly truth about the anthrax vaccine -- and for this he was forced to abruptly end his career.
He has testified twice before Congress about the exodus of Air Force pilots and the safety of the vaccine.
It is a fabulous read and I urge everyone to read it.
- Concluding Statement:
- It is disappointing that Governor Jeb Bush has chosen to sign the Florida version of the MEHPA when he could have asked our legislators to send him a bill that protects us in the event of a bioterrorist attack while at the same time protecting important individual freedoms.
At a time when the majority of people are consumed with the fear of terrorism and the attendant "what are we going to do about it" frenzy, it is understandable how expediency takes precedence over reason and logic.
However, in a rush to do something, an oblivious public has been mislead into believing that this bill is harmless, necessary, and moral.
Thus, we get a Tyranny of Public Health law that sets a dangerous precedent for a nation that has always rejected any form of state sponsored repression under any circumstance.
- No state of emergency in a free society justifies the sacrifice of the most sacred human right: the right to voluntarily decide what you are willing to risk your life for or your child's life for.
What it means to be free doesn't get more basic than that.
With this new law, government bureaucrats will make medical decisions for us.
|
|
THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.
The information provided here is for educational purposes only and is not to be construed as medical or legal advice.
|
|
