Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
The annual influenza vaccine is, by far, the most dangerous vaccine in the United States.
This is evident from the quarterly reports the Department of Justice (DOJ) supplies every 3 months to the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) as mandated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
Compensation paid through settlements in the federal Vaccine Court for injuries or deaths due to vaccines are highest for the annual flu shot, comprising more settlements than all other vaccines currently approved for the US market combined.
The last report from September of 2018, for example, listed 73 settlements from 198 cases, and of those 73 settlements for that 3-month period, 48 of the cases were for harm caused by the flu vaccine.
Harm caused by the flu vaccine that resulted in compensations include (among others):
GBS – Guillain–Barré syndrome is a rapid-onset muscle weakness caused by the immune system damaging the peripheral nervous system. The initial symptoms are typically changes in sensation or pain along with muscle weakness (paralysis), beginning in the feet and hands. This often spreads to the arms and upper body, with both sides being involved.
TM – Transverse myelitis is an inflammation of both sides of one section of the spinal cord. This neurological disorder often damages the insulating material covering nerve cell fibers (myelin).Transverse myelitis interrupts the messages that the spinal cord nerves send throughout the body.
ADEM – Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, or acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis, is a rare autoimmune disease marked by a sudden, widespread attack of inflammation in the brain and spinal cord.
CIDP – Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is a neurological disorder — a condition that targets your body’s nerves. Symptoms aren’t the same for everyone, but you may be tired and have areas of numbness and pain.
MS – Multiple sclerosis is a demyelinating disease in which the insulating covers of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord are damaged. This damage disrupts the ability of parts of the nervous system to communicate, resulting in a range of signs and symptoms, including physical, mental, and sometimes psychiatric problems.
SIRVA – SIRVA stands for “Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration.” It can happen when a vaccine is injected into the shoulder too high or too deep and can cause several types of injuries. SIRVA can lead to intense, prolonged pain, limited range of motion, and shoulder-related injuries such as Adhesive Capsulitis or Frozen Shoulder Syndrome.
Myasthenia gravis is a long-term neuromuscular disease that leads to varying degrees of skeletal muscle weakness. The most commonly affected muscles are those of the eyes, face, and swallowing. It can result in double vision, drooping eyelids, trouble talking, and trouble walking.
Peripheral Neuropathy is damage to or disease affecting nerves, which may impair sensation, movement, gland or organ function, or other aspects of health, depending on the type of nerve affected.
DEATH – Someone who was previously healthy and died after receiving the flu vaccine.
For more info, see:
The CDC and drug manufacturers’ admit, according to their own statistics, that the flu vaccine has a very low efficacy rate each year, due to having to guess which viruses will be most prevalent in the coming flu season.
So why force a dangerous vaccine on children, the vast majority of whom cannot benefit from it anyway?
Also, the CDC estimates deaths caused by the influenza each year and has been caught inflating those numbers in order to scare more people into getting the flu shot. See:
Did 80,000 People Really Die from the Flu Last Year? Inflating Flu Death Estimates to Sell Flu Shots
The actual number of people who are confirmed to have died with the influenza virus is only a few hundred each year, and most of those already have a compromised immune system that makes them more susceptible to the flu virus.
On the other hand, each year there are reports that healthy people are dying or being permanently injured after receiving a flu vaccine. See:
So there really is no good justification for anyone to give a child a flu vaccine and put that child at risk, without consulting with the child’s parents first.
And yet, news reports across the United States indicate that this is indeed happening.
In some of the reports we have heard, some parents have even signed statements that they did NOT want their child to receive a flu vaccine, but the child got one anyway.
So how can this be justified?
I asked Health Impact News foreign correspondent, Christina England, to look into this matter, as our initial reports indicated that the rationale for subverting parental consent to the flu vaccine might have come from a document published by the World Health Organization (WHO), defining something called “Implied Consent,” and is not unique to just the United States.
WARNING: Dangerous Flu Shots Being Given to Children without Parental Consent
by Christina England
Health Impact News
According to reports, a growing number of US parents were shocked to discover that their children had been given the flu vaccine at school this year without their consent, and they are now demanding to know how this was allowed to happen.
Shocked, Health Impact News decided to investigate further, and we believe that what we have uncovered are gross violations of civil rights and potentially illegal actions that put children at risk for harm for a medical procedure that only should be made with parental consent.
How to Vaccinate a Child Without Permission
Many parents in Austin, Texas, were shocked and angered by the wording used in the flu vaccine consent forms that were sent home with students from their schools recently.
According to an article published in the Statesman, many parents believed that it was an attempt by their local authorities to actively shame families who wished to opt out of the flu vaccination program.
Author Melissa B. Taboada stated that:
Parents are asked to check one of two boxes:
-Yes, I want to help protect my family and my community from flu by allowing my child to receive a flu vaccine!
-No, I do not want to help protect my family and my community by allowing my child to participate (reason).
She stated that:
The forms, created by Florida-based Healthy Schools, LLC, were distributed to a number of Central Texas school districts in partnership with the E3 Alliance, a local nonprofit that researches education trends.
One parent told the Statesman she believed that:
It’s disconcerting that school district personnel would choose to send home a letter with wording that makes it seem that my personal choice for my family is seen as not protecting my family or community.
She told them that:
As a mother, I have chosen not to get the flu shots for myself or my sons because I worry that this vaccine could harm my family by giving us the flu as I know several family members who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine.
Out of all of the phrases and choices of words available, it’s uncalled for and frankly disturbing.
In response to the parents’ concerns, at least two schools in the district sent out letters clarifying the fact that parents could choose not to fill out the forms at all, if they wished.
Evidence Suggests a Growing Number of Children Are Being Vaccinated Without Consent
Of course, in principle, not filling out these consent forms would appear to be the most logical thing to do.
However, how safe would it be for parents who did not wish their children to be vaccinated to not fill in the forms?
We believe that, in fact, it would be extremely dangerous, because according to attorney Alan Phillips, JD:
In California, children as young as 12 can get a vaccine, virtually any vaccine—a medical treatment that can permanently injure or kill them—without their parents’ knowledge or consent. [Emphasis added.]
Disturbingly, North Carolina has an even broader law: “Any minor may give effective consent … for medical health services for the prevention … of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases …” I call these laws “Stealth Vaccine Laws,” because they provide for the administration of vaccines without using the word “vaccine” or “immunization.” [Emphasis added.]
He stated that:
There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine laws. (See this formal Legal Memorandum analyzing the 8 legal violations in the NC law, and look for one at this same website addressing the CA law soon!)
First, they violate parents’ fundamental Constitutional rights. The Court has stated:
“Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.”
Under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, parents are deemed to be fit absent a showing that they are unfit—not unlike the “innocent until proven guilty” concept—so if a state gives away parental authority, it is deeming parents to be unfit for the authority given away, in violation of their Constitutional rights.
As a practical matter, there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without the parent’s consent, and even then, the person doing so must be another qualified adult, and not the child him or herself.
I am sure that many parents would agree that this is extremely concerning and it appears to prove that local, state, and world governments will stop at nothing to vaccinate our children.
This fact was proven recently, when it was discovered that many students in Florida, had received the flu vaccination without their parents’ permission.
Due to Parents’ Concerns Florida School Suspends Flu Vaccination
According to a recent report by American lawyer, Mike Papantonio, a school in Florida has suspended its on campus vaccination program, after it discovered that several students had been vaccinated with the flu vaccine without their parents’ consent, and in some cases, against the parents’ wishes to not get the flu vaccine.
In an interview, Mr. Papantonio asked news correspondent, Brigida Santos, what she could tell him about the story?’
Well, several students at Jay Elementary School in Santa Rosa County reportedly received flu shots without permission from their parents. And in fact, some parents reported that the shots were actually administered outright against their wishes.
During the interview she told him that:
A mother named April Burgess said she signed the school’s consent form, but wrote on it, quote no flu shot.
She also said she purposely left the yes box unchecked where it had asked whether her child should receive the flu shot.
Now, when she asked Healthy Schools Inc., which is the company that runs the on-campus program why this happened, she was told that she had consented just by simply turning in the form. [Emphasis added.]
When asked how the school had responded to the growing number of complaints by parents, she stated that:
They’ve suspended the program until they can ensure that the vaccination process meets their standards.
Although it’s really unclear what exactly those standards are, because there was reportedly very little to no oversight.
And, a statement from the school superintendent says Santa Rosa district schools was not involved in the planning or advancement of the flu vaccinations, nor did we administer any communication of approval with parents about the vaccines.
And yet the vaccines did take place on campus. Jay Elementary is now placing the blame on the Santa Rosa health department, which sponsors the Healthy Schools student vaccination program.
So it’s very odd that they didn’t seem to know what was going on here.
A further report on the story, published on September 29, 2018, stated that:
A few of the parents attended tonight’s school board meeting, they are demanding for more to be done.
One parent, who attended the meeting, stated that he believed that his rights as a father had been violated.
He told reporters, that he and his wife had written, ‘no flu shot,’ very clearly on the consent form.
At the meeting he stated that:
Everybody’s just sweeping it underneath the rug.
What are you going to do about it? Are you going to wait until somebody dies?
The answer to why so many children are being vaccinated without their parents’ permission may lie in a recent document published by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Governments Step Up Their Efforts to Push Vaccinations as WHO Defines “Implied Consent” to Nullify Parental Consent
We say this because the document, titled, Considerations regarding consent in vaccinating children and adolescents between 6 and 17 years old, stated that:
An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents.
Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent.
This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session.
This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools. [Emphasis added.]
This means that unless parents are made fully aware of the ‘implied consent’ rule, children can be vaccinated without their permission.
Beware: Implied Consent Can Also Be Known as Passive Consent
In order to meet vaccination targets and to vaccinate as many children as possible, many schools are now adopting a method of acceptance called “passive consent.”
When a school has adopted the passive consent method of acceptance, a child can be vaccinated at school without their parents’ permission unless the parent has actively written to the school stating that they do not want their child to be vaccinated.
One example of this policy involved the uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations.
In 2012, a team from Ontario researched parental knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards the HPV vaccination before and after it was approved by the FDA, explaining that one of the provinces using passive consent was Quebec.
Kristina Trim et al., wrote that:
Currently, policy is modelled on an 80% uptake by young women, which means when combined with vaccination, reducing the frequency of testing and increasing the age of initial PAP smear would be part of an efficient plan to reduce cervical cancer.
However, actual uptake of the vaccines is relatively low and not consistent in all areas that the vaccine is offered.
For example, in the province of Quebec where there is a passive consent strategy to school immunizations (i.e., parental consent must be explicitly withdrawn in a note to the school), there is an 80% vaccine uptake for grade-8 girls. [Emphasis added.]
This research was then compared against results of vaccination uptake in the province of Ontario, where researchers stated that the acceptance of the vaccine was far less. They stated that:
However, in the province of Ontario, where the school-based immunization program has an active consent strategy (i.e., parental consent is explicitly given in a note to the school), the vaccine uptake rate for grade 8-girls is 50%.
The team concluded that:
In terms of future implications for policy, when the goal is to preserve the health of the population, certainly the passive consent approach, whether it is for vaccination or cervical screening, seems to be showing profound benefits.
There is preliminary data that shows women who are vaccinated have less need for cervical pre-cancer procedures like biopsies and treatment, however, how this will impact guidelines and availability of such services in the future remains to be seen.
One has to question whether or not this method of gaining consent is ethical. After all, a parent may not have actually seen the letter about the vaccination in the first place.
There are many reasons why a parent may not be aware that their child is going to receive a vaccination on a particular day.
For example, what happens if the child loses the letter or does not give the letter to the parent in the first place?
Another possible reason that the letter may not be signed is if the child was absent from school on the day that the letters were given out.
These are all valid reasons as to why a parent may not have signed a consent form for their child.
Another way that a professional can vaccinate your child without your permission is by using a law called the Gillick law.
Children Can Be Vaccinated Without Their Parents’ Permission in the UK Using “Gillick Law”
When a parent does not give consent for their child to receive a vaccine, the child can overrule their parents’ wishes and receive the vaccine without their parents’ consent, provided they are deemed to be “Gillick competent” by professionals.
A document published in 2006 by the Royal College of Nursing, titled Nurse-led Immunisation of School Aged Children, explained that:
Children under the age of 16 are generally considered to lack the capacity to consent or to refuse treatment.
The right to do so remains with the parents, or those with parental responsibility, unless the child is considered to have significant understanding to make up his or her own decisions; when deciding whether a child is mature enough to make decisions people often refer to whether a child is ‘Gillick competent’ or whether they meet the ‘Fraser guidelines’. [Emphasis added.]
This means that any professional, nurse or doctor wishing to vaccinate your child can do so legally, with or without your permission, provided they believe that your child is Gillick competent’ and your child agrees to the vaccination.
What is Gillick Competent?
To be considered Gillick competent, a child would have to be seen by professionals to have the mental capacity to understand the full implications of the proposed medical treatment.
In 2006, an editorial published in the British Medical Journal titled Gillick or Fraser? A plea for consistency over competence in children stated that:
In UK law a person’s 18th birthday draws the line between childhood and adulthood, so that in healthcare matters an 18-year-old enjoys as much autonomy as any other adult.
To a more limited extent 16 and 17-year-olds can also take medical decisions independently of their parents.
The right of younger children to provide independent consent is proportionate to their competence, but a child’s age alone is clearly an unreliable predictor of his or her competence to make decisions.
A judgment in the High Court in 1983 laid down criteria for establishing whether a child, irrespective of age, had the capacity to provide valid consent to treatment in specified circumstances.
Two years later these criteria were approved in the House of Lords and became widely acknowledged as the “Gillick test,” after the name of a mother who had challenged health service guidance that would have allowed her daughters aged under 16 to receive confidential contraceptive advice without her knowledge.
And stated that:
For many years the criteria that have been referred to as the test for Gillick competence have provided clinicians with an objective test of competence.
This identifies children aged under 16 who have the legal capacity to consent to medical examination and treatment, providing they can demonstrate sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand and appraise the nature and implications of the proposed treatment, including the risks and alternative courses of actions.” [Emphasis added.]
To determine whether or not a child is Gillick competent, the professional has to make a judgement on whether or not they believe that the child has the ability to fulfill the following criteria:
- understand the problem and the implications
- understand the risks & benefits of the treatment
- understand the consequences of what could happen if not treated
- understand the alternative options
- understand the implications of their decision on the family
- is able to retain (remember) the information
- is able to weigh up the pros and cons
- is able to make and communicate a reasoned decision about what
their wishes are.
There is one issue that, sadly, the above criteria does not address and that is the fact that the child needs to “understand the implications of an adverse reaction on themselves and their family,” should one occur.
Whether this was left out deliberately is up for debate.
However, whether it was left out deliberately or not, they essentially give professionals the right to administer a vaccination to children with or without our consent.
We believe that this is particularly concerning in places where vaccinations have not been made mandatory, because it means that children can still be vaccinated, even if it is stated on the consent form that parents do not want their child to receive the vaccination.