The Military Tribunal judges hearing the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg Germany after WWII. From left to right are Harold L. Sebring, Walter B. Beals, Johnson T. Crawford, and Victor C. Swearingen. Twenty of the 23 defendants were medical doctors, and were accused of having been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder, violating basic human rights of informed medical consent. Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted and seven received death sentences; the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Image source.

Health Impact News Editor Comments

As we have previously published, the current vaccine debate in America is not a debate between extremists positions, pitting extremist anti-vaccine doctors (doctors who do not give any vaccines at all) against extremist pro-vaccine doctors (all vaccines are good, and should be given to all people, all the time, by force if necessary.) Most medical professionals do not hold either of these extreme positions, but fall somewhere in between.

No matter what your views are on the vaccine continuum, and whether you lean towards pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, everyone should be concerned about giving up our rights to “informed consent” to medical procedures. If we give up this basic human right for “the greater good” of society on vaccines, where will it end? How will our country be any different than Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed by German doctors that horrified the world, and was the center of prosecution in the Nuremberg Trials?

Is the American public going to allow a handful of politicians tied into the most extreme view of the vaccine debate set policy for all the citizens of the United States?

Vaccines: The Battle for Informed Consent

by Norma Erickson

Informed consent prior to any medical intervention is a basic human right. By definition, informed consent gives you the right to analyze the risks and benefits of the proposed medical intervention then refuse (opt out) of having the procedure performed if the risks outweigh the benefits for you as an individual. The problem is many people seem to have forgotten vaccines are a medical intervention.

SB277 in California proposes to virtually eliminate a parent’s right to opt out of vaccinations for their children if they want their children to attend public or private schools. It seems the authors of this bill have ignored the fact that medicine is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Every medical intervention poses risks for some individuals. Vaccines are no exception.

This proposed legislation has drawn attention to the issue of parental rights not only in California, but throughout the United States and around the globe. It seems the questions brought to the surface by this draconian piece of legislation are universal.

Parents want to know:

  • Who is responsible for maintaining children’s health – their parents, or the government?
  • Does the government have a right to legislate the use of products for which the manufacturers have been granted immunity from prosecution for safety defects?
  • Does the government have a right to bypass requirements for informed consent prior to the administration of a medical intervention?
  • Does the government have a right to demand parents put their children at risk of experiencing serious adverse reactions, possibly death, to obtain access to a publicly funded education?
  • Does the government have a right to legislate medical care for individuals in the absence of a bona fide public health emergency?
  • Does the government have a right to legislate what some consider to be a violation of their bodily integrity?
  • Does the government have a right to legislate measures that violate some people’s religious beliefs?

What will SB 277 accomplish if passed?

Conversations with pediatricians and other medical providers in California raised the following points:

  • SB 277 is ineffective and unnecessary. If this bill would actually eliminate school-born diseases, then it would be useful. Yet, the science is clear that it won’t. Virtually all cases of measles occurred outside the school environment;
  • SB 277 wouldn’t have altered the course of the measles outbreak had it been in place at the time. The outbreak began at Disneyland – a destination visited by travelers from around the world. SB 277 would have no impact on the vaccination status of these visitors.
  • SB 277 will do very little to eliminate school-born illnesses. The two most common vaccine-preventable diseases that are in schools are whooping cough and the flu. Yet, neither vaccine works well enough or long enough to provide the protection necessary to eliminate these diseases from schools: The CDC clearly states on their whooping cough FAQs that unvaccinated children are NOT the cause of the outbreaks; rather, it is the waning immunity of the vaccine that allows the disease to spread, even in fully-vaccinated children. (Source:– questions 5 and 6) The CDC officially estimated this year’s flu vaccine to be only 19% effective. This would leave 81% of vaccinated individuals still vulnerable to contracting and/or transmitting the flu. Even if every school-child is vaccinated, these diseases will spread widely through schools every year. (Source: – second to last paragraph)
  • SB 277 denies the right to a free and equal education to hundreds of thousands of children.
    This bill was created because of an outbreak that didn’t even occur in schools. While we know 24 of the measles cases were in school age kids, there is no documentation that any actually caught it in the school environment. No immunocompromised children caught measles. The outbreak is long over and we may not see another small outbreak for years to come.
  • SB 277 would deny school for 225,000 children who signed a personal belief exemption last year. Are the rights of such a large group to be denied over such a minuscule disease? Even if SB 277 were already in effect last year, it wouldn’t have prevented the outbreak.
  • SB 277 is unnecessary, ineffective, and unfair. Many who support vaccination also support parental rights to make medical decisions; everyone’s right to a free and equal education; and peaceful coexistence as united Californians.

The proposed legislation in California is not the first attempt to force everyone into compliance with a State ’mandated’ universal vaccination program. There are currently hundreds of proposed bills designed to eliminate or severely restrict the ability of parents to opt out of vaccinations for their children and themselves. Visit NVIC to see a comprehensive list of pending or proposed legislation in the United States.

Employers are being pressured to make vaccination status a condition for employment in healthcare facilities, schools and daycares (referenced above). Who knows what employers are next on the list of mandatory vaccination targets.

The United States is not alone in this battle. National vaccination policies vary greatly from country to country, but not for long if the World Health Organization has its way.

Australia recently adopted what they term a ”No jab, no play, no pay” policy which restricts access to daycare facilities for the ’unvaccinated’ and takes away financial benefits from families who refuse to comply with the now mandated national vaccination policy. Many other countries are looking at similar legislation.

Isreal followed suit with a ’No Vaccine – No Pay’ policy. Under the terms of the coalition deal, which appointed party member Yaakov Litzman deputy health minister, “the National Insurance law will be amended, such that child allowances will not be given in cases where a parent refuses to vaccinate their child.”

Informed Consent versus Government Control

A line has been drawn in the sand. Parents, families, and a growing body of medical/scientific professionals on one side fighting to maintain the right to informed consent while protecting the health of individuals; government health authorities on the other doing everything they can to obtain maximum compliance with whatever recommended vaccination schedule exists within their purview.

One side claims the vaccine controversy  is settled. They claim the debate is over – the science is in. Unfortunately they are not willing and/or able to provide documentation for their position which was not produced by industry stakeholders.

Fortunately, there is an ever-expanding group of medical and scientific professionals who are willing to come forward despite the personal risk to declare the science is never settled – there is always more to learn. Not only that, they are willing and able to provide compelling arguments to support their position. Many of them are willing to present their findings in open public forums and encourage debate from those with opposing views.

The SaneVax team could not agree more. Science is NEVER settled – particularly when it comes to medical interventions. Open scientific debate is desperately needed. After all, public health is at stake.

Informed consent prior to medical interventions is a basic human right that must be preserved. Vaccines are a medical intervention that are not safe for everyone.

Mandatory vaccination programs are akin to passing laws requiring the universal use of penicillin while ignoring the fact that a certain percentage of the population will have a deadly allergic reaction – inhumane, to say the least.

Therefore, we have compiled various informational material submitted to the California legislators scheduled to vote on SB 277.

The authors of the following articles have given permission for anyone who is concerned about a one-size-fits-all vaccination program to use them as needed to help preserve and/or re-establish your right to informed consent.

Knowledge is Power

Initiative Citoyenne is an independent Belgian health watchdog organization composed of supported by a long list of Belgian doctors disappointed to see that passionate and emotional arguments seem unfortunately to be outweighing a clear-headed and down-to-earth analysis of the facts.

Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, is a research scientist with the Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Colombia. She has extensive experience investigating the safety of vaccine adjuvants. The following are her contributions to the medical safety advocate’s arsenal:

Read the full article at

Comment on this article at


Free Shipping Available! Order here.

by Attorney Jonathan Emord
Free Shipping Available!