The National Vaccine Information Center is advertising this message in New York City’s Time Square over Christmas for the second straight year. Story.

by Jefferey Jaxen
Health Impact News

With little public discussion, the New York Board of Health unanimously passed the Vaccine Powers Rule in 2013. The rule required New York City children attending a day care center or aged 6 months to 59 months to be given a yearly flu vaccination. For a moment, it appeared that children would be excluded from class if they didn’t receive the flu vaccine for the first time in the State’s history. California’s Senate Bill 277, signed into law in 2015, took things further by requiring all students to be up-to-date with all vaccines to receive an education in the state.

Five Mothers vs. New York

On December 16th, 2015, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez ruled on behalf of The Supreme Court of the State of New York to end the mandatory flu vaccine rule. Mendez said in his decision that the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene “lacked the statutory authority” to mandate the influenza vaccines because they are not required under state law.

The New York times reported “The court ruling did not delve into the debate about vaccines. Rather, it found that the city had exceeded its authority by adding a disease to the list of those requiring immunization.” The recent suit against the city eventually reversing the flu vaccine law was brought by five New York mothers. Aaron Siri, a lawyer for the five mothers who filed the suit, said the following:

Parents across the city who, in consultation with their doctors, made the decision that the risks outweighed the benefits for their particular child, had that right taken away from them by 11 unelected individuals sitting in the Board of Health…

New York’s ruling provides a valuable precedent for Americans attempting to restore medical choice and medical ethics. The landscape has rapidly shifted from mostly absent public discussion when Bloomberg signed the rule into effect in 2013 compared to present day, which sees Americans motivated, alive, and pushing to block and change mandatory vaccine legislation at every turn.

Can Laws and Health Officials Mandate an Ineffective Product with Such High Health Risks?

Can children (or adults) be mandated to take a known health risk? Recently, Dr. Edward Belongia of Wisconsin’s Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation acted as principal investigator for CDC-funded research on influenza vaccine effectiveness.

Commenting on his recent CDC-funded research, Dr. Belongia said that:

The [flu] vaccine was significantly more effective … if they had not been vaccinated in the previous five years.

This year’s 2015-2016 flu vaccine is showing only 18 percent effectiveness in adults and 15 percent effectiveness in children. This is the second year in a row that the shot has been under 25 percent effective. Last year saw only a 23 percent effectiveness of the yearly flu vaccine.

Further, it is a fact that the latest Department of Justice numbers report regarding quarterly vaccine injury information reveals that the flu shot remains the most dangerous vaccine based on injuries and death compensated by the U.S. Government.

The elephant in the room for the State of New York and its Board of Health members that unanimously voted for the now defunct Vaccine Powers Rule is their violation of medical ethics and consent. All flu vaccine manufacturer inserts state, in no uncertain terms, that the safety and effectiveness has not been established in children.

Due to most health care professionals refusing to give out the inserts to patients, a violation of numerous regulatory laws and worldwide ethical governing bodies, the public is expected to search for answers online. The official website of the city of New York states in their ‘NYC vaccine information’ section gives somewhat deceitful and conflicting information compared to the official inserts required to accompany each flu vaccine by saying: Healthy people between 2 and 49 years old can receive the vaccine in either form.

Perhaps a more truthful and responsible statement by NYC.gov would be “Healthy people between 2 and 49 years old CAN receive the vaccine. Yet the safety and effectiveness of the flu vaccine has not been established in children.” The website also admits that serious reactions can occur from influenza vaccines.

Political Vaccine Corruption

Over the last few years, the United States has seen an accelerated growth of an immuno-political branch of the larger, deep-rooted medical-industrial complex. This immuno-political branch is comprised of deep and rampant conflicts of interest between vaccine manufacturers and political figures at every level influencing pro-vaccine policy. Numerous states are galloping towards mandatory vaccination backed by a federal government policy and regulatory agencies, themselves littered with conflicts of interest, officially aiming for 80 to 90 percent vaccine compliance of the U.S. population for every vaccine category by 2020.

According to the president of a U.S. network news division, during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads. As a result, mainstream media is typically silent or disproportionally biased towards pharmaceutical companies and vaccines. However, the mainstream media is beginning to show interest in exposing the corruption surrounding vaccine policies and the overall push happening throughout America.

New York Daily News’ Albany Bureau Chief Kenneth Lovett reported in his recent piece the following:

The head of the powerful Senate Health Committee has up to $130,000 in investments in pharmaceutical and other health-related companies, state records show. Sen. Kemp Hannon (R-Nassau County) in 2014 invested in 14 companies that would fall under his committee’s purview…In addition to his investments, Hannon over the past four years also received more than $420,000 from pharmaceutical and other medical interests, records show.

The current trend gaining momentum in America is favoring informed citizens, the protection of medical choice, and the full return of medical ethics. Moving forward, any politician or governing body that considers overreaching their authority with laws governing health and medicine now will face a growing headwind of opposition from the media, their colleagues, and the public at large.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?


One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.