Mandatory Vaccination – What You Need To Consider
10th December 2015
Co-Founder of Wake Up World
In June this year Bill SB277 was controversially signed into Californian State law, which legislates that all school-age children in California are subjected to mandatory vaccinations according to the State’s vaccine schedule. Its passing into law was seen as a major loss in the fight for freedom of choice and parental rights by both human rights groups and the anti-vaccination lobby.
Going a step further, legislators in Australia have recently passed laws that require both children and young adults to be vaccinated in order to receive family tax benefits payments. The newly passed “No Jab, No Pay” laws (see: Social Services Legislation Amendment) will commence as of January 2016 — at the same time that mandatory vaccination laws also in California take effect.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment was originally proposed to cease financial benefits to parents of children up to and including age 7 of who weren’t complying with the immunization schedule set out and monitored by the Australian Government. Now however, the Government has quietly altered the age definition of children from “under 7 and born on or after 1 January 1996” to “under 20” — with barely a peep from the mainstream media. This amendment is the first step in making vaccines compulsory for all Australian adults.
Under Australian law you are legally classified as an adult as of age 18. Therefore, the Australian Government has quietly mandated that adults under 20 who receive family tax benefits and who are not vaccinated according to the schedule will cease to receive benefits, modifying the terms of mandatory vaccination without public scrutiny. Accordingly, the Childhood Immunization Register will be renamed the Australian Immunisation Register, and will record adherence to the government vaccination schedule — a schedule that may also be modified, with any number or type of vaccines added to the schedule at any time.
Regardless of your belief in the value of vaccinations, the principle behind this kind of policy making should raise serious alarm bells. While voluntary vaccine uptake is declining, how can policies of mandatory enforcement be justified, removing our legal right to choose our own medical treatment and the treatment of our families? And where does it end? If government can presume to hold rights over our very bodies, and we accept it – either actively or passively – what recourse will we have when government uses the same rationale to enforce a policy with which we do not agree — for example, mandatory RFID chips?
Call it what you want, but fascism is fascism, irrespective of whether you agree with the outcome. The fact that the emotion of the vaccine debate has clouded so many people’s view of what is acceptable and lawful action of a supposedly democratic government is extremely disconcerting.
Understanding Your Individual Rights
As the mandatory vaccination precedent moves us yet another step closer to losing all legal rights to free medical choice, what can we do?
Let’s use California as an example.
The key to enforcing your lawful (as opposed to “legal”) right to choice is in the wording of the law. In fact, the wording of Bill SB277 and the definitions contained in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statutes render this legislation useless. And this fact is exactly what parents need to understand.
The first sentence of Bill SB277 reads as follows:
The key word to note from that declaration is the word “person“. According to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA Statues, the definition of the word person “… includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business trust, corporation, or company.” In other words, by law, a “person” is not a living flesh and blood human being but a legal entity assumed by living humans. Bill SB277 does not therefore apply to living human beings, only to the State Of California’s definition of a “person”. Let me elaborate…
The original meaning of “person” is taken from the Old French word, ‘persone’, from the Latin persona, meaning “actor’s mask, character in a play”. This is exactly what our legal identity provides — a mask through which we interact with rigged legal and financial systems. The laws enacted by government apply to that legal entity, not to living humans, and by assuming that persona or mask, we consent to being bound by the “rights” (which are actually privileges) and responsibilities imposed upon that legal entity.
There are two persons identified in law: these are “natural-person” and “artificial-person”. An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being. A natural-person is a “legal entity for the human-being” not of the human being. (This is an important difference. A door FOR a house is a door; it cannot also BE a house.) A “natural-person” is something constructed by human beings, and so must be some ‘thing’ other than human — something created FOR humans to use. As the “natural-person”ť does not live, it is dependent for all its actions upon the consent of a living, breathing human being to represent it — and give it “life”. For example, when a police officer asks for official ID or a judge asks you, “Are you Andy Whiteley?”, they are asking you to agree to a contract that provides a legal joinder between the living human and the legal entity (eg. ANDY WHITELEY) that bears your name. Without your agreement to play along, to represent that LEGAL ENTITY within the system, government knows it cannot exercise control over your living being. And why should it? Government itself is the creation of living beings, so in the natural hierarchy, human trumps institution every day of the week.
For more detailed information on these points, please see:
The same concept applies to the Australian legislation, which defines a “child” as a “person”. A ‘person’ is defined in Australian law to include a body corporate (company), unincorporated body or association and a partnership. (Notably, this legislation also distorts the legal definition of a “child” in Australia, stating numerous times “if the child is under 20…” despite the fact that 18 is the legal age of adulthood in Australia.)
So the question is: When you interact with government, which is itself a corporate entity, will you allow yourself to be treated as a legal ‘person’ or your real living breathing self? This question is particularly important while the science (and politics) of vaccination programs remains inconclusive at best…
The End of Medical Freedom?
While our freedom to choose is being systematically removed by law, with the support of many vaccination advocates, this imposition is not supported by a medical consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations. While scientific dissent is secondary to the point of this discussion – the mandating of vaccinations – understanding the true performance of vaccines provides important context as to the political motivations behind this mandate.
Observed objectively, 200 years worth of historical data shows that vaccinations are not responsible for the reduction in disease rates over time. The rise of modern plumbing is the main contributor to reduced infectious disease rates in developed nations. Meanwhile, population studies continue to prove that even widespread vaccination does not prevent outbreaks of disease; for example,
Meanwhile evidence continues to emerge that a phenomenon knows as ‘viral shedding’ (the passing on of the viruses contained in vaccines) may mean that the vaccinated are actually putting the unvaccinated at risk, not the other way around. While exposure to viruses and bacteria is necessary for the development of a strong immune system, particularly in early life, emerging science suggests that viruses and bacteria (the target of vaccines) may provide DNA with elements important to its function, casting further doubt on the compatibility of vaccination — an unnatural intervention — with the natural beneficial relationship our bodies share with the microbial universe. Despite this, the myth of “scientific consensus” on the benefits of vaccination and in particular the “herd immunity theory” have been perpetuated by politicians, media and the pro-vaccination lobby, who continue to claim that the unvaccinated can somehow infect those who are already protected by vaccines.
Modern vaccinations also include adjuvants such as mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde which, while known to be toxic to the human body, have never been studied from a pharmacokinetic viewpoint to determine the rates of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and side-effects. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound that is a known human carcinogen, mutagen, and immune- and reproductive-system disruptor with no established toxicologically safe level of exposure for humans. Further, thimerosal-derived ethylmercury has also been proven to be a mitochondrial (DNA) toxin in human brain cells, while aluminum is known to accumulate in the brain, and is linked to increased rates of Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. Mandatory vaccination laws therefore have the potential to create a society plagued by diagnoses of Alzheimer’s and other neurological conditions, as vaccination schedules are increasingly enforced. While such a surge would no doubt be profitable to cure-averse pharmaceutical companies, it is not in the public interest.
Clear conflicts-of-interest are apparent in vaccination approval/regulation processes, the corporations that manufacture vaccines are protected by law from being sued for damages when their product causes harm (the disastrous Gardasil vaccine is a prime example), and private health insurance companies will not insure you and your family against the potential of vaccine damage. This means that, with so many questions still to be answered about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and so few (if any) safe-guards in place to protect consumers, vaccination is an uninsurable risk — and now, in many jurisdictions, it is a mandatory one.
Most importantly, by adopting a policy of mandatory enforcement, government is making the unprecedented move of overwriting our legal right to choose our own medical treatment. If this kind of legislation doesn’t concern you, you haven’t understood the implications…
Copyright © 2015 Wake Up World.