GSK to Pay Out US$ Millions As Hundreds of Children In EU Get Narcolepsy and Cataplexy From GSK Vaccine

Some 800 children across Europe are so far known to have become seriously ill from the swine flu vaccine.

Narcolepsy is a chronic condition that causes people to fall asleep suddenly and without warning, while cataplexy causes people to lose consciousness when they are experiencing heightened emotion, including when they are laughing.  The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication. The majority of the cases involve children, but in the UK 6 healthcare workers are also seeking compensation.

GSK will not lose a cent.  It is protected from the UK claims by an indemnity clause in its contract with the UK government.  CHS previous reports include this: Vaccine Maker GlaxoSmithKline To Gain US$480,000,000 From Causing Narcolepsy in 800 Children With Its Flu Vaccine

Other recent reports include this from Norway:

European children suffer narcolepsy after swine-flu vaccinations

Report from a vaccine industry newsletter:

Report: U.K. facing $100M compensation payout relating to GSK’s swine flu vaccine  March 4, 2014 | By Nick Paul Taylor, Fierce Vaccines

Other reports:

6 Corporations That Control What You Know

Epidemic of Mumps among Vaccinated Persons, the Netherlands, 2009–2012

QUOTE: “Most cases occurred in persons who had received 2 doses of MMR, which suggests inadequate effectiveness of the vaccine.” 

This is according to a new study just published in the April edition of the journal Research: Epidemic of Mumps among Vaccinated Persons, the Netherlands, 2009–2012.

So instead of children contracting a mild case of mumps [as mumps is predominantly a short mild self-limiting illness], the MMR vaccine is putting adult males at risk of sterility.  That is a coup for the MMR vaccination programme.  The world was told if they were vaccinated with MMR they would be safe [which is like being saved from the Cookie Monster, as mumps was never a big problem anyway]. They now find they, or at least men, are at vastly increased risk from the disease they were told they would be protected from by MMR vaccine.  How clever the US CDC is and health officials the world over.  They know best, don’t they.

But then according to allegations in a legal case brought in the USA Merck always knew the vaccine was not effective against mumps.  CHS reported previously on Merck facing two Court actions in the USA in which it was alleged it fraudulently represented its MMR II vaccine worked as claimed when it did not: 

Merck Vaccine Fraud – 2nd US Court Case Over MMR Vaccine

But then Merck has had issues regarding fraud in the past:

More Fraud By Drug Giant Merck – US$650 Million

And as a company they have not been shy about the measures they are prepared to take to silence criticism:

Drug Giant Merck – “Destroy” Critical Doctors “Where They Live”

Here is the abstract of the new paper [and you can read the full paper here Epidemic of Mumps among Vaccinated Persons, the Netherlands, 2009–2012]:

Abstract

To analyze the epidemiology of a nationwide mumps epidemic in the Netherlands, we reviewed 1,557 notified mumps cases in persons who had disease onset during September 1, 2009–August 31, 2012. Seasonality peaked in spring and autumn. Most case-patients were males (59%), 18–25 years of age (67.9%), and vaccinated twice with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (67.7%). Nearly half (46.6%) of cases occurred in university students or in persons with student contacts. Receipt of 2 doses of vaccine reduced the risk for orchitis, the most frequently reported complication (vaccine effectiveness [VE] 74%, 95% CI 57%–85%); complications overall (VE 76%, 95% CI 61%–86%); and hospitalization (VE 82%, 95% CI 53%–93%). Over time, the age distribution of case-patients changed, and proportionally more cases were reported from nonuniversity cities (p<0.001). Changes in age and geographic distribution over time may reflect increased immunity among students resulting from intense exposure to circulating mumps virus.”

 

Over Half of Americans Don’t Trust Government & Doctors On Vaccination

CLICK IMAGE TO READ LETTER IN NEW WINDOW

CLICK IMAGE TO READ LETTER IN NEW WINDOW

A research letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association “Internal Medicine” this month reveals that over half of Americans either believe doctors and the government still want to vaccinate children even though they know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders or are undecided on the question.  69% of the 1361 participants had heard of this issue before. 20% believe it, 36% were undecided [neither agreed nor disagreed] and 44% disagreed.

If the letter were written in the early 1950s, before it was established smoking causes lung cancer, the authors of this letter would have dismissed that claim as a conspiracy theory, but it was later shown to be true.

The authors of the letter dismiss these beliefs as “conspiracism” and identify them as:

markers for greater use of alternative medicine and the avoidance of traditional medicine. High conspiracists were more likely to buy farm stand or organic foods and use herbal supplements; conversely, they were less likely to use sunscreen or get influenza shots or annual checkups. For example , whereas 20% of the total sample reported using herbal supplements, 35% of high conspiracists do. And whereas 45% of the total sample reported getting annual physical examinations, only 37% of the high conspiracists do. Subsequent multivariate analysis that controls for socio economic status, paranoia, and general social estrangement indicates that medical conspiracism remains a robust predictor of these health behaviors.

In other words, ignore the fact these consumers of medical services don’t believe you.  Just look out for the symptoms so you can concentrate on the people who do believe you and/or contain the “problem” when you get those who don’t.

A mark of the academic standing of the authors of the letter is that a search of common formal online dictionaries reveals there is no such commonly accepted word “conspiracism“. Thus, instead of appropriately describing these kinds of beliefs as indicating a serious public problem of distrust of government health officials, agencies and medical professionals, the authors of the letter Professor J. Eric Oliver and graduate student Thomas Wood of the University of Chicago use an invented word to describe it.

How bad is this and how badly does it reflect on these researchers and on the University of Chicago and on the supposed discipline of “Political Science“?  It means even when they have under their noses clear evidence of the true problem – a lack of belief and trust in government and medicine – they choose a perverse interpretation so others can cite their research as evidence of wide “conspiracism” in the USA.

The use of the invented word “conspiracism” is a reflection of the fact it was not possible to describe respondents as “conspiracists“.  They clearly were not.  By far the largest group of respondents to all the questions had no overall view, responding that they neither agreed nor disagreed. And this was in answer to questions which were clearly phrased to sound implausible conspiracist theories like “Health officials know that cellphones cause cancer but are doing nothing to stop it because large corporations won’t let them.”

There could be many reasons why anyone might answer they “neither agreed nor disagreed” with that proposition. So these respondents may not have agreed with the question and the way it was phrased but they may have agreed there is a problem.

For example, the debate of smoking causing lung cancer raged for years with the tobacco industry funding study after study to contradict and dispute the claim.  It was eventually demonstrated that there is a link. 

So how might people respond to a survey question implying nothing was being done because it was a conspiracy between government and industry?  Well they might not agree it was a conspiracy but they might agree they believed there was a link and nothing was being done.  So they might answer they neither agree nor disagree with a question phrased as a conspiracy but might agree it was a result of something else. 

And other respondents even if they did not agree with the question as it was put might believe by answering in the affirmative that the outcome of the survey itself might have a beneficial effect in addressing something they consider a problem. So they may also not have agreed with the question as put.

And the 36% who disagreed?  Did they disagree with the way the question was put but agreed there was a problem?  No one will know because it seems no one asked them.

Now, of course any real scientist will address all possible explanations before jumping off with some junk science ideas.  But then is “political science” science at all?  One might confidently answer, not in the University of Chicago Department of Political Science.

Anyone interested in looking at more of the “research by ” Professor J. Eric Oliver and graduate student Thomas Wood of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science might want to look at more drivel by them: CONSPIRACY THEORIES, MAGICAL THINKING, AND THE PARANOID STYLE(S) OF MASS OPINION J. Eric Oliver and Thomas J. Wood The University of Chicago.

Q. Why do they write crap?  A. Its a conspiracy, innit.

Maybe someone should tell their Head of Department.  [Nah, no point.  Its all a conspiracy.]

Don’t forget, when someone starts claiming its all “just a conspiracy theory“, to suggest there is no truth to something and suggest therefore that it is all just an irrational belief by large numbers of the voting American tax dollar paying public, it means they have lost the argument. If there is no evidence then that would be demonstrable and only cranks might believe. 

As the smoking/lung cancer issue demonstrated, when there is evidence of something, it is not a belief in a conspiracy, but a belief in a problem not being properly addressed.  But these University of Chicago political scientists spend their time trying to prove its all irrational and the American public are conspiracists.  That tells you more about the state of political science in University of Chicago than anything else.

As for the American Medical Association and its journals, they published the letter.  They are not experts in political science – far from it.  But this letter went through their peer review process and was published.  Clearly, that was not because of its academic merit but because they wanted to put this message out.  So Professor Oliver and his protege Thomas Wood, know there is a market for their drivel and this is one way of advertising they are there ready and willing to provide it.

It is particularly interesting that those who describe themselves as political “scientists” write research as if they the authors of the US constitution were conspiracists.  The founding fathers were instead realistic about power and the inevitability of its abuse if unchecked, and with that in mind the US constitution was framed with an eye to curbing abuse of power and protecting the rights of US citizens.

And what does all of this do for belief in the medical profession and in the output of researchers in US Universities who want to establish their credentials with the public?  Well for one thing, they sure are establishing the kind of credentials they carry.

Paid Ghostwriters Write Wikipedia On Behalf of Paying Clients – Confirmed by Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department

So here is what everyone has always known but could never prove and it is another strong reason to be sceptical about what appears on Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s lawyers are proposing changes to the Wikipedia Terms of Use to add an amendment about undisclosed ghostwriting on behalf of undisclosed paying corporate and other customers.

Wikipedia is advertised as an encyclopedia anyone can edit but many have complained that is not true and that only one perspective or point of view is allowed to be included, with some “troll-like” bullying and abusive behaviour from some of Wikipedia’s “Admins” and habitual “Editors” ensuring balance is eradicated particularly from some topics.  Wikipedia is edited by children and older people, some of the latter seem sadly to spend their lives on it.

The Essjay debacle revealed some of the deception and disinformation practised by [a now fired] Wikipedia paid employee, who used the false name Essjay and claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and worked as a tenured professor at a private university: Essjay Controversy. It was later discovered that he was 24 years old and had dropped out of community college with no qualifications.  A corrective footnote to a The New Yorker magazine article which originally published Essjay’s claims states: “Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught.” and “Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”“: Schiff, Stacy. “Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?”, The New Yorker, July 31, 2006.

The announcement by Wikipedia can be seen here:  Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment. But make a careful note because it could well soon vanish.  And of course the claim by Wikipedia that “To ensure compliance with these provisions, this amendment provides specific minimum disclosure requirements” is of course tosh.  Words in a Wikipedia contract cannot ensure anything, [especially if they cannot catch the perpetrators, which of course means looking for them] and Wikipedia are dependent upon corporate and other donations just to exist, so it looks like “window-dressing“:

The Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department plans to ask the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to consider a proposed amendment in our Terms of Use to address further undisclosed paid editing. Contributing to the Wikimedia Projects to serve the interests of a paying client while concealing the paid affiliation has led to situations that the community considers problematic. Many believe that users with a potential conflict of interest should engage in transparent collaboration, requiring honest disclosure of paid contributions. Making contributions to the Wikimedia Projects without disclosing payment or employment may also lead to legal ramifications. Our Terms of Use already prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these provisions, this amendment provides specific minimum disclosure requirements for paid contributions on the Wikimedia projects.

“Mysterious” polio-like illness affecting Calfornian kids

Elizabeth Weisse of USA Today reported on 26th February that a “Mysterious polio-like illness affects kids in California“.   The story is still being discussed in the US.  Regular readers of CHS will know that non polio acute flaccid paralysis [NAPFP] is clinically identical to polio, occurs whenever there are mass polio vaccination campaigns and is twice as deadly as polio:  New Paper – Polio Vaccine – Disease Caused by Vaccine Twice As Fatal – Third World Duped – Scarce Money Wasted – Polio Eradication Impossible

There were 47,000 cases of NPAFP in India as a result of the polio vaccination campaigns there whilst Bill Gates is busy telling the world the vaccination campaigns are needed to eradicate the last 300 annual cases of polio occurring worldwide.

Makes you wonder why anyone engages in vaccination campaigns which cause vastly more illness and injury than the disease it is claimed is being eradicated [but in the case of polio it seems it cannot be, so the vaccination campaigns may have to continue forever and of course with them the vastly more common and twice as deadly NPAFP].

Related: Bill Gates – Buying Immortality In History – By Beating An Already Beaten Disease & Killing Kids

Why You Must Not Sign A “Refusal To Vaccinate” Form – [At least, if you want to keep your kids that is]

CHS reproduces this post from the For Ohioans website February 9, 2014.

[UPDATE: For Ohioans is now Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines [PAMV]. The article and further advice is now found on that site here:

**(Details for parents and vaccine-aware health care providers.)**
 **(Details for employees and students**)

CONTACT PAMV: Email: sayno2flushots@gmail.com]

______________________________

The following is not legal advice. It is merely sharing ideas, understandings and suggestions regarding ways of dealing with vaccine recommendations by the CDC and vaccine mandates by the STATE.

The “Refusal to Vaccinate” form was created by the American Academy of Pediatric’s ‘legal department’ as a response to the growing number of toxic vaccines recommended by them and the growing number of parents who are becoming educated on this issue. According to the CDC our children should now receive 37 doses of vaccine between 0-16 years. [See Vaccine Schedule]

Recently in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA a statute was implemented (AB 2109) that requires their own form filled out and submitted to get a vaccine exemption.

The following strategy now being used to overcome vaccine awareness is the most diabolical strategy possible! It is unlikely that physicians have any idea what they are asking their patients to sign . . . or to sign away. It is essentially a signed confession. So please read and understand why you can’t sign it and why it is really something other than what if appears to be.

Here are 12 reasons that no parent can sign this form unless they are interested in being statutorily charged with neglect or intentionally causing harm. Repeating more boldly:

This form, if signed, could be used to have your child(ren) removed from your custody! It is a form designed to stand up in court!

*TWELVE REASONS PARENTS CANNOT SIGN THIS FORM


#1
The form attaches a child ID # that will be identifiable in the electronic records system across the country. Everyone from the school to the NSA will be able to determine who is and who is not vaccinated.

#2
The scientific term for HPV vaccine is listed to discourage parents from making the connection to the dangerous vaccine for HPV called Gardasil. [See Open Letter From a Grandmother to Her Daughters About Gardasil]

#3
Do not place any marks in any of these boxes. The physician’s records will indicate which vaccines your child has received. It would be best to put a large X through the entire section.

#4
The CDC Vaccine Information Statement is pure unadulterated propaganda. The real information about vaccines was exposed in 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards See info about the CDC – #9.

#5
Again the parent is misled to think the truth about vaccine risks is on the CDC web site.The doctor has the vaccine package inserts right in his/her office. Why is it not offered and explained to the parent? The physicians may have read them or not. However, the physicians are certainly aware that if the parents read the ‘official risks’ put out by the drug corporations, they would refuse the vaccines. Full disclosure is almost NEVER a part of the process.

#6
“I understand the following: The risks and benefits of the recommended vaccine(s).” This of course would be agreeing to a false statement. You cannot understand the risks without reading and understanding the package inserts.

#7
Parents are falsely told that without vaccines their children could suffer dire illnesses but are not told the dire illnesses/injuries the vaccines themselves could cause . . . including death. [See 30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards]

#8
This refers to the “herd immunity myth” of 1933, which has been proven unscientific over and over and over again. Simply put: if other children have been vaccinated – and the vaccines work – they won’t contract a disease from your child.

#9
Entities are listed as “strongly recommending” the vaccine schedule. Again however, parents are NOT given full disclosure as to exactly who/what the entities are and what their motivations might be. Listed on the Refusal to Vaccinate form are the following:

  • The ‘physician’ – is rewarded for administering vaccines by higher reimbursements for his fees. His vaccine “rates” are checked to determine whether or not he/she is entitled to more money. Physicians, public health workers, and drug companies have all been given immunity from any possible lawsuits that may arise as a result of vaccine-caused injury or illness. In other words, if a vaccine harms your child or causes autism you cannot sue any of them.
  • The American Academy of Pediatrics which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF ILLINOIS – that receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc. This organization relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
  • The American Academy of Family Physicians which is a corporation headquartered in the STATE OF KANSAS – that also receives lots of money from drug corporations for advertising in their Journal, etc.This organization also relies heavily on what they believe to be a “government” health advocacy agency known as the Center for Disease Control (CDC).


Bottom line: all of the above “entities” make more money if they vaccinate our children and even more if our children get sick from the vaccines . . . including the pediatricians themselves.

#10
This is the broadest and most nefarious part of this so-called form.

Nevertheless, I have decided at this time to decline . . . I know that failure to follow the recommendations about vaccination may endanger the health or life of my child and others . . . I therefore agree to tell all health care professionals in all settings what vaccines my child has not received because he or she may need to be isolated or may require immediate medical evaluation and tests that might not be necessary if my child had been vaccinated.”

This is not only deceptive and untruthful [see numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] it is asking you to confess that you know you are harming your child (and others) and don’t care. It is asking you to agree to inform any/all people who consider themselves to be healthcare “professionals” (not defined) of your child’s vaccination record. You are also agreeing to permitting undefined healthcare professionals to keep your child in isolation due to unproven or unknown exposure to a myriad of undefined communicable diseases – with or without testing.

#11
This is an admission that you understand this contractual document – and its significance – ‘in its entirety’. This means that you accept the false information sited as factual, chose NOT to do what you now know to be good for your child and others (are negligent), obligate yourself to embarrass and confuse your child by tracking and reporting on the vaccines you protected your child from, and give permission for your child to be tested or removed from your care and put in isolation for any ‘supposed’ exposure to any ‘undefined’ communicable disease by anyone calling themselves a healthcare worker. [Ohio Revised Code 3701.13]

In short, the form wants you to attest to the following . . . in writing:

1. You understand you are signing a contract with performance requirements

2. You accept false information as factual and don’t care

3. You don’t care if your child or others are harmed by your decision

4. You agree to volunteer to all pretend healthcare workers your child’s vaccine record

5. You agree to allow others to test or isolate your child for unproven exposure to a disease

#12
Here is the kicker. You are asked to sign, initial and date this document in front of a witness who also dated their signature. This is called an unconscionable adhesion contract: “a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.”

Let’s think . . . how much money is made by forcing all children in America to be ‘fully’ vaccinated? Billions or is it trillions?


*For Californians

Here is the form that is being used in California as is should be filled out:  **California Personal Beliefs and Exemption Form**

Note: only the child’s name is filled out and the form refers to an attached VACCINATION NOTICE (see below). The LEGISLATORS and employees of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA have absolutely no authority to require parents go to a health care provider. They are not qualified to make that determination and have absolutely no authority (or training) to establish those parameters


*SUGGESTED RESPONSE (OR WHAT I WOULD DO)



STEP ONE

  • Inform the nurse or doctor that as the Refusal to Vaccinate form is an adhesion contract with performance requirements, you must take it home and read it more thoroughly. No one can force you to sign a contract. It is very important that you don’t allow yourself to get bullied into signing this form on the spot.
  • Ask for the vaccine package inserts to take with you. Explain that you always get a list of side effects from the pharmacist when you pick up a prescription – before your take it. Say you need those inserts to make an informed decision. If they ask you to accept a ‘handout’ say no. Just politely repeat your request. If they still say no, just let it go.
  • On your next visit to the pediatrician or family practitioner, inform him or her that you are not interested in signing the Refusal to Vaccinate form because after due consideration you have decided that it would not be in your child’s best interests . . . which it would not!

STEP TWO

*THE VACCINATION NOTICE

It is time to place our position regarding vaccines on the record (and in the record) for the physician and the school system. The physician needs to have your notice regarding vaccines on file. This also protects him or her from the vaccination-business police (like public health employees) who monitor patient records.

This notice is designed to inform your doctor or your child’s school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and make it perfectly clear that you do not consent. The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. Suggestions for implementing this notice are on page 1 and the notice itself is on page 2. Read the notice thoroughly before you fill it out and present it. It has to be something you agree with and will attest to by signing it before 2 witnesses or a notary public. Without the witnesses or notary public it is nothing more than a memo, which will most likely be ignored. If you do not agree with the notice, do not use it. People can always create their own. A notice is only a signed statement of facts that you know to be true.

Vaccination Notice

The Vaccination Notice will be an education for all parties involved.

  • Most folks don’t know their physician gets more money for vaccinating ALL children in his/her practice.
  • Most folks don’t know that all those manufacturing or administering vaccines have been granted immunity from lawsuits.
  • Most folks don’t know that by refusing to give the parent/guardian the package insert the parent is kept unaware of the real health risks associated with vaccines.

These facts are stated on the vaccine notice. Notices are used by many for many purposes. According to the http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice

The concept of notice is critical to the integrity of legal proceedings. Due process requires that legal action cannot be taken against anyone unless the requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard are observed.

This notice will stand irregardless of the myriad of vaccine mandates the untrained legislators decide to pass via statutes in the future. Be sure to keep a copy for your own records and note the date it was presented, and the party it was presented to!!


IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “NOTICE”
The vaccination notice is designed to inform your doctor, hospital or school of the reasons you are opposed to their administering vaccines to your child and that you do not consent. See Notice http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Notice The reasons listed on the notice are easy to validate. This approach should help put an end to the endless pressure that pediatricians and school personnel inflict on vaccine-aware parents.

FILLING OUT THE “NOTICE”

  1. Items in red need to be personalized.
  2. Select son or daughter as applicable.
  3. Corporate entities need to be in all caps.
  4. The health department of each state is listed in its corporate name in all caps on Dun and Bradstreet. This information is accessible for free online.
  5. At the bottom of the notice is a space for the parent’s signature and the signature of two witnesses. Of course the dates need to be identical. An acceptable alternative to two witnesses would be to sign in front of a notary and have them stamp it for you. Use blue ink for signatures.

DELIVERING THE NOTICE
This notice requires little discussion. Just hand it to the nurse, doctor or clerk, or attach it to the Refusal to Vaccinate or the PERSONAL BELIEFS EXEMPTION TO REQUIRED IMMUNIZATIONS forms[1]. Politely explain that you are not comfortable with the vaccine risks and wish to have this notice placed in the child’s records so you don’t have to bring in a new one each time your child sees the doctor or nurse. If asked where you obtained the document, simply say from another parent, which is true. Giving more information is not required and is not advisable. Citing websites or vaccine aware organizations just motivates those in the vaccination-distribution-business to track down and discredit folks that are doing their best to bring good information to the public.

Do not answer detailed questions about your objections to any vaccine or the source of your information. Just repeat what is on the notice; “I am aware of multiple scientific peer-reviewed papers that have exposed the dangers of many vaccines.” Doctors and nurses are well armed with ‘talking points’ designed to overcome all claims you might make regarding vaccines and nearly all authors you might site. According to Russell Blaylock, MD there are lots of peer-reviewed articles on this topic for doctors and nurses to read. It is their job to seek this information. It is not your job to provide it to them. The notice just states facts and is designed to be self-explanatory.

Should the clerk, doctor, or nurse refuse to accept your notice, politely explain that their decision to accept your notice as the “agent” is not optional as it is directed to the “principal’ as well. Keep a copy for yourself and write the name of the agent, his/her position and the date on the bottom of your notice. Save the notice for your records. If there is too much resistance to placing the notice in your child’s records, send it certified mail to the physician, hospital administrator or superintendent of schools.


[1]The only info the parent should provide on these forms is name of the child and “see attached addendum”. (Sample) Anything more can be used against the parent AND the doctor, as these forms are designed to be tracked.

The Vaccination Notice

Template (updated 6-17-14)