Tuesday, May 19, 2015

One Nation Under Vaccine Manufacturers; Lost Politics, Broken Laws by Jeffrey Jaxon



One Nation Under Vaccine Manufacturers; Lost Politics, Broken Laws


By Jeffrey Jaxon

Sane Vax, Inc.    19 May 2015


It is becoming clear that as states line up in a coordinated removal of vaccine exemption bills, the fix is in. Never before has the nation seen such a concerted push towards a common, unconstitutional goal. The attempts to conceal voting and coverage of vaccine exemption bills from the public continues to reveal the signature of corporate influence directing political power. However the unfortunate and inconvenient truth of controlled senators and their lobbyist handlers is that much of their actions and authored bills are illegal on many levels. Speed and appeals to emotion are their only tools. Their window of opportunity is closing and simple force appears to be their last pillar of hope.
Looking at the removal of state medical vaccine exemptions reveals laws, international principles, codes, and rules all broken simultaneously. In committees that pride themselves on due process and fulfilling the will of the people, this time will go down in history as a warning to future generations of the damage caused by unchecked corporate lobbying and unrestrained politicians. A endless future of class action lawsuits and countless other legal challenges waits eagerly in the wings for foolish politicians to enact into law their vaccine exemption bills.

State Constitution and Educational Laws: Ignored


Shortly before the California Judiciary Committee vote on Senate Bill 277 (SB-277), Mary Holland, Legal Research Scholar at New York University School of Law, stated in a press release “This bill (SB-277) appears to be unconstitutional under California law, and if passed in this form, will wreak havoc in California courts.“ In addition, federal law protects special education students, guaranteeing they receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). For many of these students, home schooling will not work.
Recently when Vermont Bill H98 was being hurried through the Health and Welfare Committee, Senator Ann Cummings inquired how the children who refused vaccination would be educated moving forward. Senator John Campbell stated “Only homeschool will be available to them.” Highlighting the clear legal issue, Senator Claire Ayer concluded the topic by saying on record “It will be decided in the court system.”
In a recent Los Angeles Times article, it was pointed out by Kevin G. Backer, legislative director of the ACLU of California’s Center for Advocacy and Policy, that “under the California Constitution, children have the right to a public education”.
Quoting directly from the State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, under chapter 6 “State Laws”:
The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution. Recognizing the central role that education plays in our society, the California Legislature has enacted numerous laws designed to promote equality in educational opportunities and to safeguard students against discriminatory practices in public schools providing educational services.

The U.S. Constitution: Ignored


The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Vaccine exemptions declared by individuals for religious concerns, if removed, would appear to be in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Since the 1960’s the Supreme Court has established clear precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause requiring states to prove that their interference in medical autonomy is “necessary, and not merely rationally related to, the accomplishment of a permissible state policy. “Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 U.S 479, 497 (1965) (citing McLaughlin v. Florida, 379, U.S. 184 (1964)).

Medical Code of Ethics: Ignored


The “safe and effective” line was over before it began now showing to have been a baseless corporate talking point created to sell legislation all along. Doctors and nurses who should know better instantly have lost credibility uttering this catch phrase to an awakened and educated public that thoroughly knows the research and medical literature.  Vaccine inserts clearly state that the product “has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic properties, or for impairment of fertility” and that “safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established” Next, with the vaccine inserts in mind, arguments around adjuvants lack proper credibility as many have been well known toxic substances to humans for over a century. In the light of the official announcement that the U.S. government is lowering fluoride levels in drinking water, an observer could comment that the U.S. medical community only will act after 50 years of public poisoning. In the case of mercury, fluoride, aluminum and other long knowntoxic elements to the human body, it seems that regulatory agencies have schizophrenic tendencies when human health and life are on the line.

International Human Rights: Ignored


What still continues to be ignored by mainstream media and senators that wish to understand the gravity of the vaccine exemption bills they are voting and reporting on are the following potential international violations:

Nuremburg Principles:


Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
Principle VII states, “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

Nuremberg Code:


5.) “No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.”
6.) “The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.”
7.) “Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.”
10.) During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Declaration of Geneva: 


The health of my patient will be my first consideration
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient

Declaration of Helsinki:-Operational Principles


Article 13: “…subject to independent ethical review and oversight by a properly convened committee”
Article 17: “Studies should be discontinued if the available information indicates that the original considerations are no longer satisfied”
Article 16: “Information regarding the study should be publicly available”
Article 27: “Ethical publications extend to publication of the results and consideration of any potential conflict of interest”
Article 30: “The interests of the subject after the study is completed should be part of the overall ethical assessment, including assuring their access to the best proven care International Treatise under the United Nations United Nations Universal Doctrine of Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child”
Article 19: “….of the Convention states that state parties must “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence.”
Source:





No comments: