The VAXXED film crew recently interviewed Dr. Moss in West Virginia. Dr. Moss is a professor of medicine at West Virginia School of Medicine. He is also a nephrologist (kidney doctor). He has taught medical ethics for over 25 years. Dr. Moss acknowledges that he could potentially lose his job for speaking out against mandatory vaccines and consenting to be interviewed by the VAXXED film crew. Dr. Moss states that he knows 12 children with autism, including one of his neighbors. Both parents of the child who is his neighbor are physicians. So physicians are familiar with the fact that there are some children who meet all of their milestones and suddenly develop autism after receiving vaccines. Dr. Moss states that as someone who teaches medical ethics, he is very concerned that the public is not being informed about the dangers associated with vaccines. He references the Vaccine Court that compensates victims of vaccine injuries by more than $200 million a year, and that the flu vaccine is the biggest one being litigated in the Vaccine Court. He believes that anyone being vaccinated should be fully aware of the potential benefits and the risks.
Oklahoma Bill 3016 — called the Parental Rights Immunization Act —would have required healthcare providers to get informed consent from parents or guardians before administering a vaccine. In addition, the bill would legally require the healthcare provider to “provide relevant information regarding benefits and risks of the vaccine as well as information concerning the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Finally, the bill would require healthcare providers to make available for review the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: Vaccine Excipient and Media Summary" (also known as the "Pink Book," Appendix B) Program. The bill was vetoed by Governor Mary Fallin on April 29. The bill and her veto represent a failed opportunity to begin to restore the U.S. healthcare system’s integrity. In addition, the fact a bill is even required — and then vetoed — speaks to how far medicine has already fallen down the slippery slope towards full pharmaceutical company control of the U.S. healthcare system and political decision making.
It has only been a few weeks since the forced vaccination lobby rammed a bill (SB 277) through the California legislature eliminating the personal belief vaccine exemption so children will have to get dozens of doses of federally recommended vaccines or be denied a school education. While California was being subjected to one of the most aggressive and expensive state lobbying campaigns ever mounted by the pharmaceutical industry in partnership with medical trade associations funded by industry and government that same lobby was pulling an even bigger fast one on the American people in Washington, D.C. Here comes the 21st Century Cures Act, which is a Pharma-driven bill blessed by the FDA that seriously compromises the integrity of the FDA drug and vaccine licensing process. The 362-page bill sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives on July 10, 2015 and mandates that about $9 billion dollars be given to NIH to develop more drugs and vaccines and $550 million be given to the FDA to fast track products to market. The 21st Century Cures Act is being sold as a way for the FDA to quickly license experimental pharmaceutical products for people suffering with rare or life threatening diseases, whether or not those products have been adequately tested. However, greasing the FDA licensure skids to make experimental drugs available for the sick and dying, who voluntarily choose to use them, is one thing, while greasing the skids to bum rush experimental vaccines to licensure that government will legally require healthy children and adults to buy and use, is something quite different.
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? Norma Erickson of SaneVax.org addresses the subject of "informed consent" and the dangers represented by proposed California vaccine bill SB277.
Throughout the 20th century, countless medical consumers have battled to obtain the right to informed consent. Although the U.S. Constitution does not specifically address the issue, multiple court cases have upheld the premise that the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy insures that people are protected from governmental interference when deciding private matters, such as when they make decisions about accepting or refusing medical care. Every medical consumer now has the legal right to participate in their health care decisions via the doctrine of informed consent, but when it comes to vaccinations, these laws are being ignored. Vaccines are a medical intervention. As with any medical procedure, there are risks involved to certain individuals. Under the informed consent doctrine, you have a right to know these risks and alternative treatments prior to granting your consent. Remember, informed consent is the law – not simply an option.