Select Page

Parallels Between Human Rights Movements and Opposition to CDC Vaccines

Daniel Garcia

There are parallels between human rights movements and opposition to current unsafe vaccination practices.

Luddites weren’t against science or technological advances per se, they were against using technology to exploit people.[1]

The same is true today. The concept of immunization isn’t wrong per se, but beginning in the early eighties, the largest pharmaceutical enterprises began buying up smaller vaccine manufacturers and took nearly full control of the market.[2]

In order to reduce costs, safer calcium-based adjuvants were replaced with toxic metal compounds[3], cheap and untested toxic preservatives[4] remained in vaccines and injected into infants in ever increasing amounts. Cell cultures contaminated with cancer causing viruses were knowingly used for decades simply because the alternative, upgrading manufacturing equipment would have been too costly.[5]

Brain injuring vaccine formulations were knowingly kept on the market, not because suitable and safer alternatives weren’t available but simply because the profit margins of the safe product were less attractive.[6]

The pharmaceutical industry was then able to negotiate various indemnity agreements with governments that made it much harder to persecute vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by their unsafe products. Following this they lobbied for the expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule that began to grow rapidly in the early nineties.

The overuse of cheap and unsafe biological products resulted in a wave of neurologically injured and immune dysfunctional children.[7] Opposition began to form. The pharmaceutical industry responded with denial, PR campaigns and intimidation tactics. Governments found themselves between a rock and a hard place. [8][9] They were responsible for keeping vaccination coverage rates up and immunization was considered to be essential, one of the pillars of public health. They reasoned that distrust in vaccination could have devastating consequences for public health[10] and that even if current vaccines caused substantial harm the theoretical risks would outweigh the known benefits. This was not based on hard data but various assumptions that had never been proved. They had never tested the dose dependent risks of an expanded vaccination schedule.

Currently over 70 vaccine doses are found on the CDC vaccine schedule and virtually all studies look at the possible harmful effects of just 1–3 doses. That would be the equivalent of studying the harmful effects of smoking comparing individuals that smoke 9 cigarettes a day to people smoking 8 cigarettes a day. The long-term effects of the full vaccine schedule are still unknown.

The science was then declared “settled” even though it was still far away from the point where it could have been considered settled. Any further research that looked into the possible risks of vaccination was considered to be unwelcome[11] , research funding was cut, dissenters silenced. A nuanced and constructive scientific debate was replaced with slogans, PR and eventually hateful rhetoric and propaganda.

The point of no return was reached. The pharmaceutical industry, obsessed with ever increasing profits and growing markets decided to double down and not to remedy the situation. They flexed their enormous financial muscle and began to lobby for mandatory vaccination across the globe while further vaccines were to be added to the vaccine schedule. At this point the enterprise had become a one way street. There was no turning back. Far too many careers, too much money and the reputation of vaccination programs and the entire medical industry was at stake.

It was either the system or it’s critics that would have to go.

Increasing pressure and mandatory vaccination resulted in further growth of the opposition which began organize and an early pro-science, pro-safe biologicals, pro-individual freedom movement emerged.


[1] Luddites have been getting a bad rap for 200 years. But, turns out, they were right

[2] How vaccines became big business

[3] Calcium phosphate: a substitute for aluminum adjuvants?

[4] Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines not tested since 1929!


[6] The Truth About Vaccines – Episode 3 – Actuarial Value of Injury and Death


[8] CDC is "paralyzed", refuses to study vaccination data on 1200 kids

[9] CDC Whistle Blower Full Audio

[10] Dr Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

[11] Opinion | Anti-Vaccine Activists Have Taken Vaccine Science Hostage

From James

What should happen to anti-vaxxers if they file false religious exemption claims?

Anti-vaxxers may be exploiting religious exemptions, research suggests

Religious exemptions should be allowed. Regarding a sincere parent genuinely believing they are protecting their child, there is no such thing as a false religious exemption. The CDC vaccines are relatively ineffective and cause adverse reactions. Our children would be better off left unvaccinated. The CDC childhood vaccines and the flu vaccine do more harm than good. They are an assault. The vaccines themselves and the companies making them violate ethical standards and therefore violate religion standards.

Washington still allows religious exemptions, even for the MMR. To rely on a religious exemption, it is not necessary that parents as guardians of their children be members of a religion which specifically opposes vaccination.

The Pope has said that vaccinations are permitted and encouraged – believing the false allegation that the vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. But Catholics can still claim a religious exemption. The Washington law says it allows a religious exemption if the person opposes all vaccines. This is probably an unconstitutional over-reach. There are safe and effective and perfectly harmless vaccines being made, such as the leptospirosis vaccine. A person should be allowed to take a religious exemption against all vaccines not double blind tested to be safe and effective – which eliminates all of the CDC childhood vaccines and the flu vaccines.

The issue is religious. All religions teach that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Ethics is a part of religion. The CDC vaccines do cause adverse reactions. Go to the pharmacy and ask for copies of all the package inserts. The package insert for the MMR lists as one of the known adverse reactions as “death”.

The CDC childhood vaccines are not good enough and not safe enough. We would be better off not injecting known toxins into ourselves and our children.

There are safe and effective vaccines such as the leptospirosis vaccine, but it is unfortunately not on the CDC approved list.

16 Reasons Why Governor Inslee Should Have Vetoed Mandatory Vaccination Bill

Vaccines – An Attorney Viewpoint


James Robert Deal
Real Estate Attorney & Real Estate Managing Broker

PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
Law Office Line: 425-771-1110
Broker Line: 425-774-6611
KW Everett Office Line: 425-212-2007
Fax: 425-776-8081

I help brokers. Flat fee payable at closing.
Property search: Reasons Why Gov Inslee Should Have Vetoed Mandatory Vaccine Bill

If you like our work, give us a thumbs up review on Zillow

If you like our work, give us a thumbs up review on Yelp

If you like our work, give us a thumbs up on Google

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share This
%d bloggers like this: