Mandatory Vaccination – What You Need To Consider

Mandatory Vaccination - What You Need To Consider

10th December 2015

By Andy Whiteley

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 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 adults to be vaccinated in order to receive family tax benefits and pension 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 added retired pensioners to that requirement, and 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 (as well as aged pensioners) 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 childhood and adult 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.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

~ Anti-Nazi theologian and pastor Martin Niemöller

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 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:

Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases…

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 a rigged legal system. The laws enacted by government apply to that legal entity, not to living humans, and by assuming that persona or mask, we consent to be bound by the rules 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” 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, 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.

“[I] have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law.” ~ Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court.

For more information, 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…

Mandatory Vaccination - What You Need To Know 2

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 effectiveness of vaccinations. 200 years worth of historical data shows that vaccinations are not responsible for the reduction in disease rates over time, and that the rise of modern plumbing is actually the main factor in 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. Despite this, the myth of “scientific consensus” on the herd immunity theory has been perpetuated by politicians, media and the pro-vaccination lobby, who (irrationally) claim that the unvaccinated can somehow infect those who are supposedly 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, particularly in the elderly, therefore have the potential to create a surge of new Alzheimer’s and other neurological diagnoses in Australia as vaccination schedules are enforced. While such a surge would no doubt be profitable to 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…

Source Article from

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

The maximum upload file size: 28 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here


Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes