Source: www.news.com.au

THIS time last year Saba Button was a beautiful, thriving 11-month-old. She'd just taken her first three steps, and spoken her first three words. She was perfect in almost every way.

Her mum and dad, Kirsten and Mick, chose to follow the Health Department recommendation and give Saba the flu vaccination.

What they thought was a simple and responsible decision has - in the blink of an eye - destroyed the health and happiness of this very decent family.

Saba had her vaccination at lunchtime, by dinner time she was softly moaning in her cot, with a raging temperature of 40.2 degrees. Life was limping out of her.

Saba then began a desperate fight. After two days in ICU at PMH her family was called in to say goodbye. Kirsten and Mick refused to give up. So did Saba.

She survived but she's now a very different child. Saba has an acquired brain injury from prolonged seizures, it's a global injury, she is no longer able to walk or talk, or eat by mouth.

What makes this story so desperately sad is her parents believe the injury to their daughter could have been prevented.

In the days leading up to Saba's flu jab, 111 other Perth children had suffered adverse reactions.

Source:www.naturalnews.com

Health authorities around the country are set on further restricting vaccine exemption rights, probably due to the growing awareness of vaccine problems and increase in exemptions around the country. Currently, proposed laws in Washington State and New Jersey would limit the ability of residents in those states to refuse vaccines. If not stopped, those new restrictions will soon become law and pave the way for further restrictions across the country. Predictably, anti-vaccine activists are opposing these bills, but with state health departments and well-financed pharmaceutical lobbyists on the other side, is a grass roots effort likely to succeed? Hopefully so, but if the proposed laws are shown to raise significant Constitutional issues, anti-vaccine activists may find that they have a "David" advantage against the "Goliath" opposition.

The importance of this critical strategic point cannot be overstated. A bill can die a quick death if it is unconstitutional, regardless of how many constituents or special interest groups support it. It may take thousands of activists to successfully oppose legislation supported by state health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry, but it may take only one activist revealing serious Constitutional flaws to stop the bill dead in its tracks. So, let's take a look at some of the arguments, as these may apply to future attempts to restrict vaccine exemptions in other states in the future, as well as to these two states now.

In Washington State, SB 5005 would require that forms for all exemptions, whether religious, medical or philosophical, to "include a statement signed by a health care practitioner, that the parent or guardian has been informed of the benefits and risks of the immunization."¹ Aside from failing the common sense test - health care practitioners should not be the gatekeepers of non-medical exemptions - this bill may also be unconstitutional with regard to religious exemptions.

The U.S. Constitution does not require states to offer religious exemptions, but when they do, those laws must conform to the boundaries of the First Amendment's 'free exercise' and 'establishment' clauses. But since the Constitution doesn't mention vaccines or exemptions, how do we know what these clauses really mean with regard to vaccine exemptions? When the application of law to a specific set of facts is unclear, we must look to legal precedent from the courts for guidance.

Federal courts have held that the only two requirements needed to invoke First Amendment protection for religious exemptions is that the beliefs be religious in nature and that they be sincerely held.² The boundaries of those two requirements are defined by legal precedent as well, but for SB 5005 purposes, the point is that this bill would add an additional requirement, above and beyond what the First Amendment requires. Since federal law is a higher authority than state law, a state law arguably can't add requirements over and above what is required by the federal, First Amendment, as set forth in federal legal precedent.³ So, Washington State's SB 5005 may violate the First Amendment, and if passed, it would be vulnerable to attack and subject to being stricken accordingly.

The proposed NJ bill, ACR157,⁴ raises other Constitutional concerns. It would require parents to provide a "written statement . . . explaining how the administration of the vaccine conflicts with the bona fide religious tenets or practice," whereas currently, New Jersey parents need only provide a signed, written statement that the vaccines interfere with the free exercise of the pupil's religious rights. The new wording raises Constitutional concerns in that the words 'tenets' and 'practices' could reasonably be interpreted to require membership in an organized religion, and in any event exclude someone whose religious beliefs, but not a tenet or practice, were violated by the vaccine requirements.

However, federal legal precedent tells us that the First Amendment rights may apply whether or not applicants are members of an organized religion, and regardless of which church they belong to if they are;⁵ and that one need only have the above-cited sincerely held, religious belief - not a violated tenet or practice. So, if the New Jersey bill becomes law, it would arguably violate the First Amendment, and the new law would be subject to attack and to being stricken accordingly. This risk is a strong deterrent to legislative support!

To be perfectly fair, the bill might pass Constitutional scrutiny if it was simply amended to add the word 'beliefs' to the phrase "tenets and practices," since, unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit a state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims. But this bill raises other Constitutional concerns. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Lemon case,⁶ a law violates the First Amendment establishment clause if it fails any one or more of these tests: 1) The government action must have a secular purpose, 2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) it must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. While minimizing exemptions may be deemed a secular purpose, and the primary effect may not be that of advancing or inhibiting religion (vs. presumably protecting the public health), it is inevitable that at least some local authorities will become involved in excessive entanglement with religion when they are tasked with deciding which religious beliefs qualify and which don't.

For one thing, what is a sincerely held religious belief to one person may not always look like that to someone else; for another, some who fear unvaccinated persons may reject those with sincerely held religious beliefs improperly. This is likely why many states' religious exemption laws are worded in such a way as to prohibit the state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims (and that fact, too, supports those who oppose this New Jersey bill).

A third Constitutional issue with this New Jersey bill concerns giving local authorities the responsibility for assessing religious beliefs. This would inevitably result in an inconsistent application of the standards that exemption applicants must meet. Some of the people scrutinizing religious exemption applications will want to exclude all the applicants they can because they fear that exempt children put others at risk (but if vaccines work, how could that be?), or will wrongfully include or exclude some applicants because they fail to understand the legal boundaries of what qualifies for the exemption despite having good intentions. The bottom line is, if there is not a clear standard that is applied consistently throughout the state, that may result in 'equal protection' violations under the 14th Amendment. So, there are serious implementation problems with this bill. For all of these reasons, the New Jersey bill should not be passed.

One final argument against bills aimed at restricting access to vaccine exemptions in general is the lack of the need to do so, even under mainstream views of vaccines and infectious disease. All states have authority to require vaccines or to quarantine the unvaccinated during outbreaks and emergencies. So, there is no need to rush through legislation to close the exemption gap; state health authorities already have the authority they need to deal with any genuine infectious disease problems. Indeed, to the contrary, there is a moral and ethical imperative to expand exemption rights, as noted in the recent article, "Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative" at http://www.naturalnews.com/Author_A... and powerful evidence that states already have excessive, overreaching authority in emergencies, as explained in the "Swine Flu Review" at http://www.pandemicresponseproject.....

The above is only an introduction to the issues discussed. To better understand your vaccine exemption and waiver rights and for documents providing legislative support to pro-vaccine-choice activists around the country, see the Vaccine Rights website at www.vaccinerights.com, or contact the author.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Every year around the first of October we find ourselves plunged into another flu season. Health organizations ramp up communications; plastic signs appear outside of neighborhood pharmacies; and more than half of the US population typically decides to be vaccinated. In December of 2010, however, the flu vaccine formulated specifically for children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old was found to be causing a higher than normal incidence of febrile seizures.

Various health websites characterize a febrile seizure as a 'convulsion' or a 'loss of consciousness' that accompanies a fever. In general, the eyes roll back and the individual becomes rigid, twitches and shakes; they do not respond or seem to hear and do not remember the episode.

Despite valiant efforts by the medical establishment to downplay incidences of febrile seizure, calling them 'harmless', 'common' or even 'normal' and assuring us that there is no permanent neurological damage (phew!), anyone who has ever witnessed one, particularly in a young child, will tell you that it's terrifying.

The makers of this year's flu vaccine for children, Sanofi-Aventis, have admitted to a higher than normal incidence of febrile seizures after administration of their vaccine but still insist that no causal link has been made. The uptick in seizures was detected by an early-warning system of the CDC and the FDA, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), that is designed to track vaccine safety.

While no final conclusions have been made public yet, it is safe to say that the bias of health authorities leans heavily towards vaccination, seeking to legitimize the wide use of vaccines and protect the reputations of companies that make them. So likely, we will never know the un-spun truth.

For the moment we can only add the possibility of a febrile seizure to a growing list of concerns and possible side effects of vaccination. And when you do, you may just find yourself with the needed argument to forgo one more elective, ineffective vaccine in favor of a bit more sunshine and good 'ole vitamin D.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Are routine vaccines dangerous for children? Dr Suzanne Humphries, a practicing nephrologist (kidney physician) says the vaccine industry isn't giving people both sides of the story, and parents need to get informed before subjecting their children to vaccines that can potentially cause serious harm or even death.

It's all being revealed in a one-hour NaturalNews interview with Dr Suzanne Humphries. You can view the entire interview on NaturalNews.TV at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F...

In that interview, you'll hear Dr Humphries talk about:

• Why she became concerned about vaccines after noticing kidney failure in patients who recently received vaccines.

• Why vaccines are often contaminated with unknown viral strains, and why the vaccine industry has covered up known vaccine contamination (and knowingly sold contaminated vaccines to be used on the public).

• Why the entire vaccine industry needs to be questioned, and why a new effort is needed to scientifically assess whether vaccines are really safe or effective.

• Why the fairy tale that "vaccines eradicated polio" is a false mythology -- here's what really happened.

• Why the "smallpox" vaccine has never been proven to be effective against smallpox at all.

• Why vaccine industry research is extremely flimsy and ignores rigorous standards of scientific evidence. (Using improper placebos designed to minimize the appearance of side effects, for example.)

• Why the vaccine industry won't test vaccines versus unvaccinated children (they're terrified of the results).

• Why children caught up in outbreaks of measles are often the very same children who were vaccinated against measles!

• Why vaccines may actually suppress the immune system and cause increased vulnerability to future infections.

• Why many childhood infections such as chicken pox are perfectly natural, normal and even HEALTHY.

• Why the outlandish and unscientific behavior of the vaccine industry is causing an erosion of credibility across all "science."

• Why many of the people engaged in pushing vaccines have financial ties to vaccine companies.

• Why the vaccine industry is utterly unwilling to tolerate anyone asking intelligent questions about the safety of vaccines.

Hear all this and more in this exclusive interview with Dr Suzanne Humphries:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F...

Dr Humphries is one of the signers of the groundbreaking new document just released by the International Medical Council on Vaccination, called VACCINES: Get the Full Story: http://www.naturalnews.com/Vaccines...

Stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for yet more interviews and breaking news about vaccines in the days ahead. We will air an interview with Dr Sherri Tenpenny tomorrow, followed by an exclusive video interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield the following day.

If you haven't yet seen the video from Cryshame, which shows an autistic child damaged by vaccines, you can view it here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5659B...

Note, also, that nearly all those who push vaccines are also pushers of GMOs. Both poisons are being forced upon the world in the name of "science," but both are actually based on extreme distortions of science and driven by for-profit corporate agendas.

www.naturalnews.com

Bill Gates is promoting a plan to use wireless technology to register every newborn on the planet in a vaccine database.

In a keynote address to the mHealth Summit, which focuses on using mobile technology to improve health care, Gates said that improving survival rates among children under the age of 5 would benefit not just individual families, but societies and the planet as a whole.

"The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth," he said. "That sounds paradoxical. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children."

The number of children who die before their fifth birthday has already dropped from 20 million in 1960 to 8.5 million today, a statistic Gates attributes mostly to vaccination.

"About one-third [of that improvement] is by increasing income," Gates said. "The majority has been through vaccines. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone -- get fingerprints, get a location -- then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen."

Gates suggested using cell phones to record each birth and send the information, including biometric identifiers, to a central database. This database would then send reminders to parents' phones when it was time to come in for vaccines or other treatments. He said a prime location to implement such programs would be northern Nigeria or northern India, where vaccination rates are less than 50 percent.

Acknowledging that registering every single birth has never been done before, Gates called for "1,000 new ideas" to "blossom" in order to make it happen.

Such ideas could conceivably involve using the GPS devices inside phones to physically track parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines.

Gates also called for use of mobile technology to implement more continuous monitoring of vaccine supply chains.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Controversy over the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has led to a resolution to end mandates requiring young girls to receive it. If passed by the Virginia state Senate, a bill recently passed by the Virginia House of Delegates will end mandates put into place in 2007 requiring 11- and 12-year-old girls to receive the HPV vaccine before entering sixth grade.

"We just want to make sure parents are evaluating the risks of what they're giving their daughters, and not a legislative body," said Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg), sponsor of the bill. "I don't think that we have the medical degree to make those decisions."

The House voted 61-33 to end the mandate, leaving only Washington D.C. with HPV vaccine mandates. Texas Gov. Rick Perry attempted to mandate the HPV vaccine for young girls in 2007 through an executive order, but lawmakers effectively blocked it.

Merck and Co.'s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix are the two HPV vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for preventing certain types of cervical cancer. But both vaccines have a long and dirty history of causing severe harm and death in girls that have received them.

Not only are the HPV vaccines a considerable threat to young girls' health, but a NaturalNews investigation revealed in 2007 that they do not even work. According to the evidence, the FDA knew since at least 2003 that HPV is not even linked to cervical cancer, but has continued to collude with drug companies to push the dangerous vaccine on the nation's youth.

There are also numerous cases of serious adverse events and deaths in girls that have received the vaccine, including 1,300 negative reactions to Cervarix in the U.K. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026293_H...), and numerous deaths both in the U.S. and abroad from both vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029632_I...).

To learn more about the dangers of HPV vaccines, visit:
http://www.truthaboutgardasil.org

Source: www.naturalnews.com

New documents have emerged that clear Dr Andrew Wakefield of the allegations of fraud recently made by the British Medical Journal and its reporter Brian Deer. This new evidence "completely negates the allegations that I committed scientific
fraud. Brian Deer and Dr. Godlee of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) knew or should
have known about the facts set out below before publishing their false allegations," says Dr Andrew Wakefield (see sources, below).

Newly-revealed documents show that on December 20th, 1996, a meeting of The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group based at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School featured a presentation by Professor Walker-Smith on seven of the children who would later become part of the group of patients Dr Wakefield wrote about in his 1998 The Lancet paper (which was later retracted by The Lancet).

Remember, Dr Wakefield has been accused of completely fabricating his findings about these same children in his 1998 paper, but these documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism.

Thus, Dr Wakefield could not have "fabricated" these findings as alleged by the British Medical Journal, which now finds itself in the position of needing to issue a retraction, or it must now expand its accusations of fraud to include Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Dhillon... essentially, the BMJ must now insist that a "conspiracy of fraud" existed among at least these three researchers, and possibly more, in order to back up its allegation that Dr Wakefield's study results were fabricated.

The smoking-gun evidence

Professor Walker-Smith's 1996 presentation at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School was entitled, "Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR - A Review of the First Seven Cases."

His presentation notes began with the following text: "“I wish today, to present some preliminary details concerning seven children, all boys, who appear to have entero-colitis and disintegrative disorder, probably autism, following MMR. I shall now briefly present
their case history [sic]."

He then went on to detail the clinical history of these seven children as derived from his medical team as well as senior pathologist Dr Amar Dhillon. Importantly, Dr Andrew Wakefield was not part of this investigation. This means that Dr Wakefield's findings were independently replicated by another medical research team.

The British Medical Journal's accusations against Dr Wakefield -- that he fabricated his findings -- are therefore false. The mainstream media accusation that Dr Wakefield's findings have "never been replicated" is also blatantly false.

Here are the notes on the seven children, as presented in 1996, 14 months BEFORE Dr Wakefield published his landmark paper in The Lancet:

Child 1. Immediate reaction to MMR with fever at 1 [corrected, illegible]
Rapid deterioration in behaviour - autism
Histology active chronic inflammation in caecum
Treated Asacol
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** (1)

Child 2. MMR at 15 months - head banging 2 weeks later.
Hyperactive from 18 months.
Endoscopy - aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure
Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen
core.
Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation
Acute and chronic inflammation.
Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment]
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** ? CROHN’S DISEASE

Child 3. ? dysmorphism - chromosomes and normal development
MMR at 5 months [sic]
Measles at 2.5 years* - 1 month later change in behavior
Hyperactive with food
Colonoscopy - granular rectum, normal colon and lymphoid nodular
hyperplasia.
Histopathology: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia.
Increased eosinophils 5/5 mild increase in inflammatory cells (Dhillon)
Routine normal
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
INDETERMINATE COLITIS**
[* correction: he received measles vaccine first at approximately 15 months of
age and MMR at 2.5. years]

Child 4 (2). Reacted to triple vaccine 4 months - screaming and near cot death
(DPT)
MMR at 15 months - behaviour changed after 1 week.
“measles rash” week before
Endoscopy - minor abnormalities of vascular pattern
Histology - non-specific proctocolitis**
Treated
INDETERMINTE PROCTOCOLITIS
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA

Child 5 (3). MMR at 14 months.
Second day after, fever and rash, bangs head and behaviour abnormal
thereafter.
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia
Histopathology: Marked increase in IEL’s [intraepithelial lymphocytes] in ileum
with chronic inflammatory cells in reactive follicles. Increase in inflammatory cells in colon and IELs increased.
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
INDETERMINATE COLITIS

Child 6 (7). MMR - 16 months - no obvious reaction
2 years behavioral change - 2.5 years
Screaming attacks - / food related
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia terminal ileum
Histology - Prominent lymphoid follicles
Dhillon: moderate to marked increase in IEL’s, increase in chronic inflammatory
cells throughout the colon - superficial macrophages not quite granuloma
INDTERMINATE COLITIS
Child 78. MMR 14 months
16 months “growling voice”
18 months - behavioural changes - autism diagnosed at 3 years
Barium [follow through X ray] 5 cm tight stricture [proximal] to insertion of
terminal ileum
Endoscopy- prominent lymphoid follicle in ileum
Mild proctitis with granular mucosa
Histology
Ileum - reactive follicles
Colon - bifid forms, increased IEL’s
Slight increase in inflammatory cells
INDETERMINATE COLITIS
? CROHN’S DISEASE