Wednesday, July 27, 2011


"Carrie Mominee, right, talks to her daughter Kaylyn, 5, center, while she gets her back to school shots from communicable disease nurse, Kelly Kelley, left, on Wednesday morning. Kaylyn received two shots, a Kinrix for DTaP and Polio, and a MMRV, for measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox." - caption from the Evansville Courier & Press article.

Actually, five year-old Kaylyn received EIGHT vaccines - not Two. She was vaccinated for Diphteria, Tetanus, Pertussis (whooping cough), Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella (chicken pox). I doubt her mother knows that there has been not ONE SINGLE STUDY performed to investigate the safety or efficacy of administering all of these vaccines simultaneously to a human child. Each vaccine is studied in isolation for its effect on the body, but there are not now and never have been ANY studies that actually replicate the real world scenario that is the CDC's Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule. I wonder if Kaylyn's mother realizes that her daughter has just become a guinea pig for the pharmaceutical industry.

Next, you can view the video of Vanderburgh County Health Department Nurse, Kelly Kelley, administering shots, assuring us "They all turn out fine" and joking, "We haven't killed one yet!"

Kelly Kelley - Communicable Disease Epidemiologist at Vanderburgh County Department of Health

The article associated with this photo and video was printed in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier & Press Newspaper on Monday, July 24, 2011. The headline reads, "Sticking to the schedule - Community adjusting to revised immunizations" - I would provide a link to the online version of the article, but I can't, since it's been taken down by the Metro Editor, Mr. Tom Lovett.

I first spoke with Mr. Lovett yesterday, when I called to ask him if the paper would do an article on vaccine-injured children or at the very minimun provide the whole store about religious and medical exemptions, which parents in Indiana are legally entitled to by law. Mr. Lovett made it perfectly clear that while he sympathizes with my own situation, "I can tell you are passionate about this, and I believe you believe your daughter was injured by vaccines..." he is completely unwilling to even consider publishing anything in the Courier & Press that may make parents believe there is ANYTHING dangerous about vaccines. "I'm not going to go there." He stated adamantly that the CDC has decided that vaccines are safe, telling me that "even the doctor who published the original artical backed away from this." (I assume he was talking about Andrew Wakefield, who has most certainly not backed away from anything. I also assume Mr. Lovett knows nothing about Brian Deer or the Murdoch scandal. He wasn't in the mood to be educated, so I wasn't going to go there with him, either.

I assured Mr. Lovett that I was not wanting to make this about autism, but was asking only for equal time to explain that there are some children who are more vulnerable to vaccine injury. At the very least, I begged, please tell parents about their rights to exemption. The article mentioned exemptions vaguely, though not by name: "Waivers could be obtained in special circumstances." As I pointed out, this is misleading and makes it sound like it's difficult to get an exemption. It's not. In the state of Indiana, all you (as a parent or guardian) have to do is write out your religious exemption and hand it to the school nurse. I did it. Mine reads, "My daughter does not receive vaccinations because we believe God created her immune system perfectly. We also believe that artificial manipulation of her immune system is against God's will." If you want to learn more about vaccines, how to find out what's in them, and if you may want to exercise your legal right to religious exemption, I suggest reading my blogpost VACCINE INGREDIENTS, CHILDREN AS GUINEA PIGS, & RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.

At any rate, Mr. Lovett was helpful in suggesting I either write a letter to the editor or contact the editor of the opinions page and ask to be a guest commentator. I pointed out that there is a world of difference between a front page story and a letter to the editor, but I was wasting my breath by this time, so I let it go. I did, however, ask if the comments section of the online article would be censored. I was assured by Mr. Lovett that they would not. He stated that as long as people followed the Courier & Press' policy for comments and did not engage in profanity or personal attacks, there would be no censorship. Sadly, Mr. Lovett did not keep his word.

This morning I heard from several friends that the comments on the online article had been disabled. They knew this because they, as parents of vaccine-injured children who care about the health of other children, went to the online article and tried to share their stories. A few of the posts were published before Mr. Lovett disabled comments and removed them. I called Mr. Lovett to ask why the comments were disabled and was informed that he had disabled them because they were not following C&P's policy. I reminded him that he had specifically stated that the comments would not be censored and I certainly had not seen any profanity or personal attacks. Mr. Lovett stated in today's telephone conversation (the first one today) that the comments were removed because they were "off topic." He went on to tell me that because the article was not about vaccine safety, but was about "getting shots for school," comments made by parents concerned about vaccine safety were "off topic."

After I thought about this for a while, I called Mr. Lovett back. I asked him to clarify the "off topic" thing for me. I reminded him that the online article did contain a video of Nurse Kelly Kelley giving vaccines and assuring parents "they always turn out fine" and then joking about how the vaccines she has administered have not killed any children yet. I stated my confusion as to how comments by parents whose children have been injured or killed could be off-topic? That's when Mr. Lovett hung up on me.

Since our last telephone conversation, not only have the comments been disabled, now the entire article is gone. Fortunately, I had already started this blog post and had saved the link to the video and downloaded the photo. I suggest you view it and share quickly. Censorship is king at the Evansville Courier & Press, and it may not be available for long.


  1. I realize there are a few typos in the above post. Sorry for that. I've been trying to correct it, but for some reason it won't repost. I'll leave it for now.

  2. i think you should call mr. lovett back and tell him that the cdc may have declared vaccines to be safe, but the supreme court of the united states has ruled that they are UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE.

  3. Look, I applaud you all for trying to get the word out there on what you believe. But you aren't granted any intrinsic right to put what you believe all over the newspaper's website and Facebook page just because they're a public figure. They aren't denying you anything that you are granted automatically, they aren't "censoring" you. Look at this space you're writing in-- you have every avenue to get your message out there.

    Do you have any idea the number of people who approach newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and high profile news blogs each DAY wanting their message to be heard? Are they being censored because these entities won't grant them that space?

    Rethink your approach. Being rude and pointing fingers at one person in a company that I imagine is fairly big really isn't helping your case. Some of the comments I've seen you leave on the Facebook page have been downright hateful and condescending. You're damaging your own case here. Best of luck, if that's the attitude you want to take with a cause you are so clearly impassioned about.

  4. Anonymous, for my own use, do you know what case the US Supreme Courts made their decision?

  5. I notice you aren't posting comments here until they are "approved." Wouldn't that also be censorship?

  6. Anonymous: (the second and fourth?) - Thank-you for applauding our efforts. We never intended to use this approach. When I first called Mr. Lovett at the Courier & Press, I was simply asking the paper to print accurate information that would allow parents who are concerned about vaccinations to know their legal rights. Those rights in the state of Indiana include religious and medical exemptions. The wording of the original article made it sound like exemptions were difficult to get ("Waivers could be obtained in special circumstances.") That's misleading. If the C&P is really acting as an unbiased and professional news source, why not TELL PARENTS about religious and medical exemptions? This is status quo in newspapers and on nightly news casts across the country. I actually wrote a blogpost about this last year when one of our local television stations did the same thing. (I think it's probably time to repost that one, too.)
    We, as parents of vaccine injured children, are angry. We are angry because in many cases if WE HAD BEEN TOLD OUR RIGHTS OUR CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE VACCINE-INJURED. This lasts forever and it changes your entire life.
    Parents have the right to know. We are simply fighting for that right. The Courier & Press IS censoring the comments of parents of vaccine-injured children, and it's because those who are making the decisions (Mr. Lovett, in this case) believe vaccines are safe. It is HIS fear about what will happen if he tells parents the truth about exemptions that started this whole thing. Exemptions are the law and regardless of what Mr. Lovett believes on a personal level, it is his responsiblity as a journalist, and the C&P's responsibility as THE MAJOR NEWS SOURSE for hundreds of thousands of tri-state citizens, to put those fears aside and publish the whole story.

  7. As far as me censoring the comments on this blog, I am a private citizen. I am not a major newspaper, nor am I people's only source of information. People read my blog because they are interested in what I write and it is relevant to them. You are attempting a ridiculous analogy.
    In the past, I have not required comments to be approved before posting them, and there were some that were completely inappropriate and profane. There have also been several attempts to post comments advertising pharmaceuticals, in particular, for Viagra. (Your guess is as good as mine on that one!) Anyway, that's why I moderate the comments before allowing them to post.

  8. I suggest you read up on what real censorship actually is. I'm not being rude or flippant-- but actual, government-sanctioned censorship.

    Your freedom of speech, as protected in the Bill of Rights, has absolutely no relevance where businesses and entities like the newspaper, the television stations, etc. are concerned. Absolutely none.

    You know where it has relevance? When the government starts censoring what you say in your own space, on your own medium of choice. But my dear, in this case, the government is not censoring you. A business is trying to protect its business interests in keeping its website focused and clean of controversy that it simply does not have the manpower to deal with, in keeping its own Facebook page for its own use as it sees fit for its business and the dissemination of information it and its staff has had the time to work on.

    Do you truly think Mr. Lovett has the authority to decide to allocate hundreds upon thousands of manpower hours to medical research? I have some hard news for you. Most people don't have that authority, time, or manpower.

    I applaud your efforts. I hope your child(ren) continue to thrive and grow and that the world continues finding new and innovative solutions and therapies for the problems that exist for children with challenges.

    But I do not and cannot applaud your misuse of the phrase "freedom of speech," and I do not and cannot applaud your misuse of the cry of censorship.

  9. I am told that parents of vaccine damaged children are to be 'black-listed' both in the UK and the USA.

  10. Tami,

    the supreme court ruled vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe in this ruling:

    09-152 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC (02/22/11)

  11. To my knowledge, SCOTUS didn't actually rule vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe, but were borrowing a phrase from the Congressional discussion surrounding the original legislation removing liability from the vaccine industry for vaccine injury.

  12. Debate about the use of the term "censorship" is academic; vaccine damage is not. Let's cut to the chase: every available vaccine has killed recipients - in some cases, few; in some cases, many. For instance, for the DTaP vaccine alone, the CDC database shows 48 deaths reported as "adverse events". But JAMA has estimated that only 1% of actual vaccine reactions ever get reported, and this estimate is well borne out by the many comments from parents recounting their frustration, as doctors refused to acknowledge even the possibility that the post-vaccination damage suffered by their kids was related to the vaccine. So we have no way of knowing whether 48, or 480, or 4,800 kids have died as a result of the DTaP shot.

    I believe most of the public is totally unaware that, regardless of the associated probability, their child could die as a result of the next vaccination, and that the administering doctor, nurse or CVS pharmacist has no way to predict whether that will or will not happen. Considering that vaccines are touted as safe and effective, and that much or most of the general public therefore regards them as incapable of causing significant harm, the situation is unacceptable - to understate the case.

    There is another issue at play here; the misrepresentation of the historical success of vaccines, as well as the true threat of disease. The vaccination myth is so entrenched, and so successful, that some parents have actually compared measles to the plague, when in fact, by the time the vaccine was introduced, the associated mortality had already declined by more than 95% from its peak early in the 20th century, making it a relatively benign disease - certainly nothing like the killer some consider it.

    So we have a conundrum. Were the general public aware of the true nature and extent of vaccine damage and the overblown portrait of the threat of disease, it would demand relevant information from media sources such as the Courier Press; but it isn't, because media sources such as the Courier Press will not allow the discussion.

  13. I really enjoyed reading you blog. I am always looking for new information because as the old saying goes “Knowledge is power”.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.