Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Virginia Department of Health
State Board of Health
Regulations for the Immunization of School Children [12 VAC 5 ‑ 110]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
11/16/22  3:06 pm
Commenter: Anonymous

No mandate for COVID-19 vaccines

For the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary to NOT follow the CDC recommended childhood immunization schedule and to NOT add the COVID-19 vaccine to the recommended schedule.


The COVID vaccine should NOT be added to the childhood immunization schedule because:

  1. VDH requirements to follow the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule deters and prevents physicians from educating parents on their child’s health and family history-related contraindications (as listed in the vaccine manufacturer insert and on the CDC website) in order to obtain proper informed consent.


IT IS UNETHICAL for the VDH to require the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule because it forces physicians to promote parental compliance RATHER THAN promoting/providing parental education regarding contraindications. Parents aren’t given manufacturer inserts to review and parents aren’t told the responsibility is theirs (not the physician’s) to determine if a manufacturer or the CDC has advised against a child with that particular health issue(s) and family history to receive a particular vaccine (and to repeat this practice for every other vaccine on the ever-increasing CDC recommended vaccine schedule).


  1. No vaccine is safe for all people


Each individual’s genetics and medical conditions are unique and many contraindications exist. A contraindication by definition is, “a symptom or condition that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable.” The mere inclusion of contraindications on vaccine box inserts is an ADMISSION by vaccine manufacturers that there are particular individuals who are advised to not receive certain vaccines and that vaccines are, therefore, not safe for ALL people. In addition, each individual’s body reacts uniquely to vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Why should anyone need a notarized exemption form in order to avoid a vaccine that the manufacturer, itself, advises someone not to receive via the contraindications list?


  1. It would mean forced violation of the hypocritic oath to “first do no harm” for all who recommend and administer vaccines.


IT IS UNETHICAL for physicians to be required to recommend the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule for every child because there are contraindications based on each individual’s health and family history. Why should non-compliance due to a contraindication require submission of an exemption form?


  1. IT IS COERCION to require compliance to a CDC-recommended childhood immunization schedule for school attendance


It is a form of COERCION to require 1) compliance to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule or 2) submission of a notarized exemption, or have to face the threat of exclusion from public education (i.e. truancy), for which parents face criminal charges.  


  1. Naturally-induced, post-infection antibodies are superior to vaccine-induced antibodies that last a very short time and fail to protect against the newest strains. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy has been debunked.


The value and legitimacy of naturally-induced antibodies, obtained by contracting and recovering from COVID-19, has been acknowledged in many countries, yet continues to be dismissed in our country. Naturally-induced antibodies last longer and protect against a wider variety of COVID-19 strains.


  1. Long-term safety studies have not yet been conducted on the COVID-19 vaccines, therefore they have not yet been proven to be safe.


Not only has there not yet been time to complete long-term safety studies, but also Emergency-Use Authorization (EUA) was fraudulently given to the COVID-19 vaccines. EUA is based on the contingency that there are no "adequate, approved, and available alternatives," yet there has been a refusal to acknowledge the legitimate scientific studies that have been conducted around the world on the multiple, safe, effective, alternative treatments.


  1. There are alternative, effective, safe treatment options


Our federal and state health agencies’ refusal to acknowledge legitimate alternative treatments does not mean they don’t exist. Denial doesn’t authorize any federal or state health agency to require vaccination and eliminate other treatment options (e.g. Paxlovid and combinations of Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, Zinc, etc.). 


As of October 14, 2021, over 12,000 doctors and scientists around the world signed the Rome Declaration in agreement that the coercion and mandating of the COVID vaccines and the withholding of the various adequate, available alternative treatments constitute as crimes against humanity.


IT IS UNETHICAL for the VDH to eliminate the option for parents to choose between vaccination and the legitimate alternative treatments.


  1. Submission of biennial safety reports on all vaccines are not enforced, therefore vaccines are not yet proven to be safe.


Americans have no reason to trust the safety and efficacy of any vaccine because vaccines manufacturers are FREE FROM LIABILITY due to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, an act that was CONTINGENT upon the submission of biennial safety reports to Congress by the Secretary of HHS detailing the improvements in vaccine safety at least as frequently as every 2 years, but has failed to comply? The 6 July 2018 lawsuit (see link, below) resulted in admission by HHS that no such report has ever been submitted since 22 December 1987. Why have there been NO legal repercussions for this violation, and why has the HHS has been permitted to continue its 30+ year streak of failure to comply with the submission of biennial safety reports as required by the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines”?


The 6 July 2018 lawsuit:


  1. Profound conflict of interest has been ignored and permitted between the many health agencies which influences the CDC’s recommended schedule


How can any Virginian be forced by the VDH to trust (and comply with) anything being promoted and recommended by the CDC due to the extensive conflict of interest between the federal health agencies and vaccine manufacturers?


  1. The vast number of adverse events should be an embarrassment to the vaccine industry and should warrant severe legal repercussion. Countries all around the world (and the state of Florida) have already recognized its risks far outweigh any intended benefits.


Innumerable are the number of vaccinate-recipients who have then contracted COVID-19 despite having been vaccinated. Data proves efficacy wanes far sooner with vaccine-induced antibodies as compared to naturally-acquired antibodies. VAERS data proves the risk of an adverse event post-vaccination FAR EXCEEDS the risk of severe COVID-19 infection for children.


As a result of the HHS failure to submit biennial safety reports and as a result of the 1986 NCVI Act that protects vaccine manufacturers from liability, over $4.2 billion dollars in federal compensation for injuries incurred by the CDC recommended vaccine schedule has been paid by the federal government’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) for the VAERS reports that have gone to trial and won. Since VAERS became operational in 1990, it is estimated that fewer than one percent of all vaccine adverse reactions are reported (and two out of three vaccine-injured plaintiffs are denied) according to the 2011 report by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., which was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (see link, below).


Vaccines have been halted and pharmaceuticals recalled for far fewer adverse reactions than what has been reported from the COVID vaccines.


The 2011 report by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.:


  1. Ethical, legitimate, double blind, inert placebo, long-term studies have not been conducted to ensure safety and efficacy.


Legitimate safety studies include double blind, inert placebo experimentation, as well as predictable, reliable, repeatable results in short- and long-term bases, along with third-party testing and the absence of conflict of interest. NO SUCH STUDY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED by the CDC, FDA, HHS, etc. on individual vaccines or the combinations of vaccines administered at the same office visit as other vaccines. IT IS UNETHICAL to require compliance to the CDC recommended vaccine schedule when multiple vaccines are to be administered at the same age range but have not been tested for safety when administered in conjunction with other vaccines. IT IS UNETHICAL require compliance to a vaccine schedule that includes vaccines that were in clinical trials for only four days, like the Hep B vaccine (Engerix) by GlaxoSmithKline that is administered within 24 hours of birth, or Hep-B (Recombivax) by Merck, which was watched for 5 days with no placebo group, or polio (PVI) by Sanofi Pasteur, which was watched for 48 hours with no inert placebo (instead they compared it to a group receiving a different vaccine and fraudulently called that a placebo group).


Our state health regulatory agencies are set up to guarantee safety, so why are you willing to consider requiring compliance of the CDC recommended vaccine schedule while manufacturer inserts state the vaccines have NOT been studied for mutagenic, carcinogenic or impairment of fertility? It is impossible to say these vaccines are “safe and effective” when they have never been studies for mutagenic, carcinogenic or impairment of fertility.


Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

CommentID: 205506