Does Senate Bill 139 represent genuine concern or corporate greed?
Follow the money.
      SB 139 will set forth a statewide database of all Colorado's children.
The system will be used to call parents and coerce them to have their
children "fully" vaccinated. This means the child must have every single
recommended vaccine.
      When I was a child I only had two immunizations: polio and smallpox.
These shots were for serious diseases that affected large populations. I am
truly grateful for advances in modern medicine that have eradicated deadly
diseases. Today, though, Colorado's children are required to receive 29
vaccinations by the age of 4. The risk of children contracting some of these
diseases is miniscule.
      For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is promoted as necessary for
infants and schoolchildren yet the over a period of years there was only one
chronic case of Hepatitis B in the birth through age 4 category. The
calculated average would be less than four in a million cases. These are the
children who contracted the disease from their infected mothers. Children of
infected mothers should be the only children needing this vaccination. In
that same time period there were only 15 cases in the birth through 14 years
age group. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health Environment
fact sheet: "Hepatitis B is not spread through casual contact or in a
typical school, office or food service settings. It is not spread by
coughing, sneezing, or drinking out of the same glass." The Centers for
Disease Control admitted there is not one documented case of transmission of
hepatitis B from sharing toothbrushes, razors or ear piercing. Most
important, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons has declared
that children are more at risk of being harmed by the vaccine than the
disease.
      Why the drastic increase in vaccine requirements for diseases posing
no risk to most children? Is the vaccine industry really concerned about the
welfare of our children, or have our children become a captive market for
the vaccine industry? To answer these questions we must follow the money.
      Congressman Dan Burton was instrumental in uncovering the corporate
profit connection to the increase in vaccine requirements. His interest
started when his perfectly healthy grandson turned autistic overnight after
receiving nine inoculations in one office visit. These vaccinations
contained 40 times the toxic level of mercury for humans. He became
determined to uncover the truth. What he discovered is sickening, if not
shocking. A majority of the members on the committees that approved vaccines
had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the
vaccines. Either they were being paid as consultants or lobbyists, or owned
vaccine patents or stocks in the pharmaceutical company. One member owned a
patent for the vaccine being approved and was also being paid by the
pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and promote vaccines as
safe. This is tantamount to letting the vaccine industry write their own
profitable government mandates. When committees approve a vaccine as safe,
federal funds are released to buy the vaccines from the manufacturers.
      Follow the money. "The vaccine manufacturer of a new vaccine that is
added to the universal list has an assured stable market of three-and-a-half
to four million babies born in this country every year. As of 1986, the
manufacturer has virtually no liability for adverse events that may occur
.... No liability. Stable made market. A stockholders dream," said Barbara
Fischer of the National Vaccine Information Center.
      Corporate Executives of the major vaccine manufacturers have invested
millions of dollars into the creation of a framework for a national database
to tag and track citizens to enforce compliance with government vaccination
policies. SB 139 fits perfectly into their plan.
      Around the country parents have been threatened with losing custody or
losing insurance coverage if their children were not "fully" vaccinated.
      Section 1 (1) ( c ) of SB 139 states: "The Colorado Department of
Health and Environment has a stated performance goal to increase the number
of "fully"
      immunized children ..." Why "fully" immunized when some vaccines are
unnecessary and cause more harm than good? According to the American
Association of Physicians and Surgeons: "the federal government pays the
state a bonus of up to $100 for every "fully" vaccinated child. What's their
motive-money or medicine?" The state does not receive the money if a child
is exempted from just one vaccination.
      If SB 139 passes, responsible parents who choose to exempt their child
for valid reasons will be pressured by the Colorado Department of Health
into full compliance.