What You Can Do to Protect Your Children
from Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines
As parents work to oppose laws requiring mandatory vaccination, and take whatever steps necessary to protect their children from myriad toxins injected into the bloodstream, many have wondered why there is not more relief from the courts. After all, isn’t forced vaccination unconstitutional, and refusal to vaccinate a fundamental religious right?
Most parents assume that their children belong to them and that they have a moral obligation to bring them up according to their own beliefs and standards. However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has informed its employees that this is not the case. Citing chapter 13 of their own guidance documents, entitled “Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights,” by Kevin M. Malone and Alan R. Hinman, CDC, describe the key court cases that have removed these rights from parents, as well as a little-known doctrine called parens patriae.
Anyone concerned about mandatory vaccination should read this document, posted at cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf. The underlying premise is the germ theory of disease, with no acknowledgment of the role that sanitation and good nutrition play in protecting us from illness. Public health authorities seem unable to question the notion that only vaccinations can protect us against disease.
According to the CDC, court decisions not only allow states to require vaccinations, but give them police powers to enforce them. On page 271 of the aforementioned document we read: “The first state law mandating vaccination was enacted in Massachusetts in 1809; in 1855, Massachusetts became the first state to enact a school vaccination requirement. The constitutional basis of vaccination requirements rests in the police power of the state. Nearly one hundred years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding the right of states to compel vaccination. The Court held that a health regulation requiring smallpox vaccination was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power that did not violate the liberty rights of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The police power is the authority reserved to the states by the Constitution and embraces ‘such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety’ (197 U.S. at 25,25 S.Ct at 361).
“In Jacobson, the commonwealth of Massachusetts had enacted a statute that authorized local boards of health to require vaccination. Jacobson challenged his conviction for refusal to be vaccinated against smallpox as required by regulations of the Cambridge Board of Health. While acknowledging the potential for vaccines to cause adverse events and the inability to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person can be safely vaccinated, the Court specifically rejected the idea of an exemption based on personal choice. To do otherwise ‘would practically strip the legislative department of its function to [in its considered judgment] care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease’ (197 U.S. at 37, 25 S.Ct. at 366). The Court elaborated on the tension between personal freedom and public health inherent in liberty: ‘The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members’ (197 U.S. at 26, 25 S.Ct. at 361).”
Actually, Jacobson v. Massachusetts did not force the vaccine―it allowed the person to pay a fine of five dollars (about one hundred twenty-five dollars in today’s money) for refusing. However, CDC and other agencies interpret this legal decision as allowing doctors and public health officials to overlook the terrible side effects of vaccines as necessary for “the greater good.”
SCHOOL VACCINATION LAWS
Regarding vaccination as a requirement for school attendance, the CDC document states on page 272: “The Supreme Court in 1922 addressed the constitutionality of childhood vaccination requirements in Zucht v. King. The Court denied a due process Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of city ordinances that excluded children from school attendance for failure to present a certificate of vaccination holding that ‘these ordinances confer not arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health’” (260 U.S. at 177, 43 S.Ct. at 25).
“More recently, in the face of a measles epidemic in Maricopa County, Arizona, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the argument that an individual’s right to education would trump the state’s need to protect against the spread of infectious disease short of confirmed cases of measles in the particular school. Given the nature of the spread of measles and the lag time in getting laboratory confirmation of cases, the court in Maricopa County Health Department v. Harmon was satisfied that it is prudent to take action to combat disease by excluding unvaccinated children from school when there is a reasonably perceived, but unconfirmed, risk for the spread of measles (156 Ariz at 166, 750 P.2d at 1369). Although the court considered the right to education under Arizona’s constitution, the decision is instructive in showing the reach of police power to ensure the public health. The court in Maricopa specifically noted that Jacobson did not require that epidemic conditions exist to compel vaccination.”
Parents can take religious or philosophical exemptions only when a state law allows them to do so. That is why having these laws on the state level is so important for protecting our children from the toxic effects of vaccines.
Furthermore, according to the CDC, the government has the authority of parens patriae. On page 273 we read: “Further authority to compel vaccination of children comes under the doctrine of parens patriae in which the state asserts authority over child welfare. In the 1944 case of Prince v. Massachusetts, which involved child labor under an asserted right of religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court summarized the doctrine, noting that: ‘Neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth’s well-being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor, and in many other ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child’s course of conduct on religion or conscience.’
Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death (321 U.S. at 166–7, 64 S.Ct. at 442).”
The definition of parens patriae is as follows: The government, or any other authority, regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves. The principle that political authority carries with it the responsibility for protection of citizens; a doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act.
So when did the doctrine of parens patriae slither its way into our world?
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was passed creating birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.”1
Until the passage of the act, parents simply recorded the birth of their children in the family Bible. There was resistance (including lawsuits) to this invasion of the federal government into state policies and procedures. One lawsuit argued “Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States.”
In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The government of the then forty-eight States pledged the “full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system.1
When a child is born, the parents fill out a “certificate of live birth” supplying many details of their lives and heritage. The hospital then sends (or sells?) the certificate to the state which registers the child as a corporation and proceeds to create a birth certificate bond. The name of the baby is converted to all caps. This newly created entity is commonly referred to as a strawman and is placed into a “trust” known as the “Cestui Que Trust.”
The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. The child’s strawman is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate which is owned by the state. The government places the child in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time that the state claims that the parents are no longer caring for its asset to suit the state.
COMPEL TO SUBMIT
Does this sound unbelievable? Read the statement made by Edward Mandell House from the private papers of President Woodrow Wilson: “[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system [the Birth Certificate] designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.”2
However the state, as a corporation, cannot own a living flesh and blood man, woman or child. It can only own other corporations such as the strawman—the legal construct that it created via the birth certificate. The corporate government of the state is parens patriae of your child’s birth certificate.
However, while public health employees believe they have the authority to vaccinate and even kidnap your living flesh and blood offspring, it simply isn’t true. The only authority they have is over this piece of paper, the birth certificate. Instead of contracting with them or consenting to being the STRAWMAN, you can notify them that you do not wish to contract or consent by giving them a vaccination notice. When government is a corporation, not a king, it is not sovereign. It is merely a legal construct—words on a piece of paper stored in a safe somewhere. And all corporations are bound by the laws of contract!
THE VACCINATION NOTICE
The following is not legal advice. It is merely the sharing of ideas, understandings and suggestions for declining the vaccine requests of physicians, educational institutions and employers.
It is time to place our educated decision—and denial of consent—regarding vaccinations on the record. The creation of a legal notice can accomplish this. The concept of notice is critical to the integrity of legal proceedings. Due process requires that legal action cannot be taken against anyone unless the requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard are observed.
The vaccination notice also allows you the opportunity to educate those requesting the vaccination—as an enormous system of propaganda regarding vaccines has been in place for a very long time. For the most part those requesting vaccinations believe these toxic concoctions are benign and beneficial (safe and effective). Most vaccination requesters don’t know or understand that:
• The public health department, the CDC and the state are all corporations. Basically our entire government is a franchised network of corporations.
• Physicians connected to certain HMOs get more money for each “fully vaccinated” child in their practice.
• Those manufacturing and administering vaccines have been given an exemption for liability should these concoctions cause injury, illness or even death. This unjustly places the costs (liability) of any injury or loss onto the parent, patient, student or employee—not on the vaccine requester.
• Most vaccine requesters intentionally withhold the vaccine package insert thus denying the parent, patient, student or employee real information about the health risks they are being asked to take. There are even documented cases of parents being jailed for injuries that resulted from childhood vaccines.
The vaccination notice is designed to notify the school that you do not choose to have your son, daughter or self vaccinated with products the manufacturer doesn’t stand behind and that you refuse to accept the liability for any vaccine injury or illness that might occur from the vaccinations. It states clearly that if the school wishes to accept the liability you will reconsider your position. They will never accept the liability in writing, you can be sure. No one can force you to have toxic substances injected into you or your child while they remain immune from the damage that might ensue.
You can download the templates and select the one you wish to use—modify it to suit your needs: parentsagainstmandatoryvaccinesdotnet.wordpress.com/vaccination-notice-for-schools-and-colleges/.
Be sure to read the instructions carefully. It is essential to read, understand and agree with the notice before you sign and deliver it.
Delivering the notice requires little discussion. Just hand it to the clerk responsible for the collection of student paperwork. Explain that it is a lawful notice to be placed in your (or your child’s) record. Should you be asked where you obtained the notice, simply say from another parent, which is true. Giving more information is not required nor recommended. Citing websites or vaccine aware groups or authors just serves to motivate those in the vaccination-distribution-business to track down and discredit (or worse) the folks that are doing their best to bring good information to the public. The less said the better. Let the notice speak for you.
Should the clerk refuse, politely remind him or her that that decision is not his or hers to make as the notice is for both the “agent” and the “principal.” You may have to remind the employee that neither the clerk nor his or her supervisor can make decisions for the “principal.” Keep a copy of the notice for yourself. Always remain polite, never threatening. Should the school employee refuse to place the notice in the record, write on the vaccination notice “refused by agent (name) on (date)” in the space at the top of the notice. Then take it home and send it certified mail (with return receipt) to the superintendent (or dean of admissions). Include the short explanatory letter given in the link.
TEN LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE VACCINATION PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES
1. Vaccine science is “unsettled.” There are scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines as well as the “herd immunity myth.”1 And there is documented evidence that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has intentionally kept this information from public health workers, physicians, legislators and the general public.2,3,4,5
2. Harvard Study concludes “safe and effective drugs” are a myth. A 2013 Harvard Study exposed the epidemic of corruption in government institutions by Big Pharma influence and money.6
3. Those participating in vaccination program are exempted from liability. Those manufacturing, ordering or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from liability should their drug cause injury, illness or even death. There is no incentive to insure vaccines are even effective, which they aren’t.7
4. Patients and parents are never given full disclosure. Vaccine package inserts are intentionally substituted with a sales pitch created by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics that hides the truth about vaccine benefits and health risks, including seizures, denying parents/patients full disclosure.8
5. The CDC vaccination recommendations are not science-based. Vaccine schedules have been established by the CDC and are promoted by public health departments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations. CDC vaccine recommendations are not science-based as many of their reports have been altered to hide pertinent and damning information.9
6. CDC is a private for-profit corporation “doing business.” The CDC is not a government health advocacy organization. It is a corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet and headquartered in the state of Georgia with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, their recommendations are influenced by the “fiscal” health of their corporation.
7. State public health institutions are private for-profit corporations “doing business.” Physician or institutional records are frequently reviewed by the state public health department, which is also a for-profit corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet, and which receives monetary compensation from the CDC to perform this function. Therefore, the state public health department’s recommendations and actions are influenced by the “fiscal” health of their own corporation.
8. American Academy of Pediatrics is a private for-profit corporation “doing business.” The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians are not health advocacy organizations. They are trade associations-corporations (listed on Dun and Bradstreet) that are headquartered in the state of Illinois and the state of Kansas respectively, whose monetary compensation from the vaccine manufacturers contributes to the “fiscal” health of their corporations.
9. Physicians get more money for each “fully vaccinated” child. Physicians (who are intentionally misinformed by the CDC and Big Pharma and who cannot be sued for vaccine injuries) are paid higher reimbursement rates for each “fully vaccinated” child.
10. Profits, not science, motivate vaccine mandates. Legislators for the state have passed corporate statutes mandating certain vaccines for attendance in educational institutions. As the legislators have no medical training and can easily be influenced by drug company lobbyists and or the CDC, Inc, their statutes are not scientifically motivated.10
Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent
As the parent of Sally Doe, I am prohibited by law from endangering my son or daughter; therefore, I declare the following:
Sally Doe’s address is: 2525 Maple Lane, Grove City, Ohio
1) I am aware that those ordering and/or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from liability should my son or daughter suffer from a vaccine caused injury or illness. Since the Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (Feb 22, 2011), drug companies are under no legal obligation to insure their vaccine products are either safe or effective. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund is not an acceptable alternative to me. (Reason listed below – #10)
2) Unless I receive the vaccine manufacturer’s package inserts, I have not been given full disclosure regarding any vaccine. CDC or public health vaccine information sheets and/or websites are not acceptable alternatives. (Reasons listed below – #4 & #5)
3) I am aware that vaccine schedules have been established by the CDC and are promoted by public health departments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations. I do not accept CDC recommendations as science-based. (Reasons listed below – #4 & #6)
4) I do not recognize the CDC as a government health advocacy organization. It is a corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet and headquartered in the state of Georgia, with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, their recommendations are influenced by the “fiscal” health of their corporation.
5) I am aware that physician records are reviewed by the Ohio Department of Health, a corporation headquartered in Columbus, OH and listed on Dun and Bradstreet, and which receives monetary compensation from the CDC to perform this function. Therefore, the state public health department’s recommendations and actions are influenced by the “fiscal” health of their corporation.
6) I do not recognize the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American Academy of Family Physicians as health advocacy organizations. They are both corporations (listed on Dun and Bradstreet) that are headquartered in the state of Illinois and the state of Kansas respectively, whose monetary compensation from the vaccine manufacturers contributes to the “fiscal” health of their corporations.
7) I am aware that many physicians are paid higher reimbursement rates for administering vaccines.
8) I am aware that legislators for the corporation known as the state of Ohio, listed on Dun and Bradstreet, vote on statutes and rules for the state of Ohio. These included statutes mandating unsafe pharmaceutical products called vaccines for attendance in education institutions. As the legislators have no medical training and can easily be influenced by drug company lobbyists and/or the CDC, I do not accept their corporate statutory mandates as science-based.
9) I am aware of multiple scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines as well as the “herd immunity myth” of 1933.
10) I am aware that the corporation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (listed on Dun and Bradstreet and headquartered in Washington, DC) determines claims paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund via a secret administrative process and also profits from vaccine patents.
11) I have concluded that failure to follow the CDC recommendations about vaccination is less likely to “endanger the health or life of my child or others” than following their recommendations.
As parent or guardian I am prohibited by law to endanger my child. So, for the reasons I have listed and more, I deny permission for anyone to administer the CDC recommended vaccines to my son or daughter unless they provide me with the vaccine package insert, allow me to determine if the health risks are acceptable, and sign a document stating that they personally, not me (and or my spouse) will be responsible for any injury or illness (as defined by the International Medical Council on Vaccination) the vaccine they administer might cause.
NOTE: This document can be used to protect those that administer vaccines (physicians, nurses or others) or are obliged to adhere to corporate statutes from any punitive statutory actions or penalties.
Parent/Guardian: Signature: Date:
Parent/Guardian: Signature: Date:
Witness: Signature: Date:
Witness: Signature: Date:
9. Lewis, David. Science for Sale. Skyhorse Publishing. 2014.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2015
1. Barefoots World – Parens Patriae, barefootsworld.net/parensp.html.
2. Stamper, Melvin. Fruit from a Poisonous Tree. iUniverse (October 30, 2008) p. 59.