Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 ANNA And The Mass Vaccination Folly
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  


United Kingdom
37 Posts

Posted - 07/20/2006 :  16:02:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Folllowing is a bulletin from the National Vaccine Information Center

"You can adjust childhood immunization policy -- say, separating the MMR components and giving them a year apart as some critics suggest -- and still protect children from deadly epidemics. But you can't adjust the outcome of a fatal seizure. Those in charge need to demonstrate they are as concerned about the health of every single child who gets a shot as they are about "herd immunity".

- Dan Olmsted, UPI reporter on the death of Anna in Britain after MMR vaccination

BL Fisher Note:

Slowly but surely a few investigative journalists looking into the dark corners of one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies in the U.S. and Europe are coming to the same conclusion parents of vaccine injured children came to a long time ago: individual children are being killed and crippled on the altar of the "greater good" utilitarian pseudo-ethic embraced by public health officials. Public health officials around the world are compromising the biological integrity of our young by insisting on achieving "herd immunity" and refusing to acknowledge just how many casualties it takes to do that.

The immoral utilitarian rationale created by British lawyer Jeremy Benthem in the 1800's was then and still is a convenient excuse for elitists in charge of making government policy to use the "greater good" club to dismiss a minority of individuals as expendable in service to the majority. Works just fine if you and your loved ones happen to be in the majority. Doesn't work so fine if you and your own are the one's being sacrificed.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, which put the utilitarian rationale on trial along with doctors they charged with crimes against humanity after World War II, got it right in 1947: no human being - even if they have M.D. or Ph.D. written after their name - has the right to use another human being as a means to an end, no matter how good that end may appear to be. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which created the Nuremberg Code to serve as a guide for the practice of ethical medicine, made it quite clear that it is immoral for doctors to force other human beings to risk their lives in order to advance medicine, science or improve the human condition without their voluntary, informed consent.

Were Anna's parents truly informed by public health officials about the risks of MMR vaccine before their daughter was vaccinated?

Mass vaccination policies dictated by doctors employed by government may have saved many in the past who would have died or been crippled by infectious diseases. But it is becoming clearer that vaccines and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies have also destroyed the lives of many individuals and their families, who may or may not have contracted an infectious disease and may or may not have died or been injured from the disease.

The time has come for government health officials around the world to remove the blinders from their eyes and tear down the stone walls they have built around their hearts and care as much about children, like Anna, who die or are crippled by vaccines, as they say they care about children who die or are crippled by infectious diseases.

For free NVIC E-News bulletins go to:

ANNA'S LAST DAYS by Dan Olmsted

ANNA's Last Days 1

ANNA's Last Days 2


Legal aid victory for paralysed MMR boy

Third of GPs on new contracts drop child jabs

Thousands of Scots children get single jabs as anxious parents pay up to avoid MMR

'Rain Man' in Scottish fight against MMR


The Controversial MMR
MMR vaccine quotes
MMR Vaccines and “Helpers” as Toxic Agents


Edited by - Father_of_Anna on 08/02/2006 14:44:49


United Kingdom
608 Posts

Posted - 07/24/2006 :  08:59:43  Show Profile  Visit john's Homepage  Send john an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Your "Third of GPs on new contracts drop child jabs" story is amazing.

Department of Health statistics, provided in a Parliamentary answer, show that last year 36.7 per cent of practices working to the General Medical Contract refused to give jabs for MMR, whooping cough, diptheria, meningitis and tetanus.

Can't quite believe that, why give them the option if you care about uptake? And why opt out if you care aboutr vaccination, as they are meant to?
Go to Top of Page


358 Posts

Posted - 07/24/2006 :  10:42:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
John - hopefully because these GPs believe that certain of these vaccinations don't work/have little benefit or have serious side-effects which are encouraged to go unreported. Although I fear the real reason is because they wouldn't get the huge financial bonuses that goes with a 70% to 90% immunisation rate. I'm sure I read somewhere that these GPs are based in areas where there is a historically low vaccine uptake. Could be coincidental though.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05