Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety

25 Aug

There is an amazing document to be found on the internet: the “Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety”.

My take on this? It isn’t a real method of communicating one’s possible concerns about vaccines with one’s doctor. Instead, it is appears to be intended to sway parents away from vaccinating their children. They read this and go “Oh No!” and probably never even show it to their pediatricians.

The document is long and asks doctors to provide huge amounts of information supporting the idea that vaccines are safe and effective. Again, my view is that the document is more about getting parents to question vaccines.

The “Warranty” includes a scary list of vaccine “fillers” including the ever not-present “antifreeze”. It brings up the SV40 scare, including the nonsensical statement, “I hereby warrant that the vaccines I employ in my practice do not contain SV 40 or any other live viruses.” I guess whoever wrote the “Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety” never heard of he MMR vaccine, with its live viruses and all. How can a physician warrant that MMR doesn’t include “live viruses”?

In the end the objective of this document appears to be: give this to your doctor and when he/she refuses to sign it, take that as proof that vaccines are not safe.

To insure that this happens, the Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety includes a killer clause:

Regardless of the legal entity under which I normally practice medicine, I am issuing this statement in both my business and individual capacities and hereby waive any statutory, Common Law, Constitutional, UCC, international treaty, and any other legal immunities from liability lawsuits in the instant case. I issue this document of my own free will after consultation with competent legal counsel whose name is __________________________________________, an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of ___________________________.
________________________(Name of Attending Physician)
________________________ L.S. (Signature of Attending Physician)

Yep. The doctor is supposed to waive all legal protection from liability. He/she is supposed to put his/her business and personal assets behind this.

Make a document that says, “I want a glass of water…oh, by the way, please waive all your legal rights before doing so”. See if your doctor will sign it.

I’ve toyed with creating a “Physicians Warranty of Autistic Child Safety”. It would require the physician to provide all the evidence that the alternative medical therapies have been tested and proven to be beneficial and safe.

Oh, yeah, the physician would have to waive his/her immunities from liability lawsuits.

I considered asking a number of the prominent alternative medical practitioners if they would consider taking my kid on as a patient, then asking them to sign the “Physicians Warranty of Autistic Child Safety”.

But why when I already know the answer will be no?

I guess it says something about the vaccine-rejectionists that they have to resort to such cheesy measures as the “Physicians Warranty of Vaccine Safety”.

13 Responses to “Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety”

  1. Linnorah August 25, 2009 at 12:54 #

    That last paragraph is indeed a killer. I have my doubts whether a document waiving each and every right of yours can even be legal. Never mind that any lawyer who advised their client to waive their immunities would not deserve to be referred to as competent.

  2. Dedj August 25, 2009 at 15:52 #

    As far as I’m aware, it’s a basic unalterable responsibility of registration and fitness to practice that you MUST be operating under ALL applicable codes of practice and professional conduct whenever you undertake your professional role at ALL times. These rules also apply to situations outside of your professional role in cases where your identity as a professional can be associated with your behaviour.

    You cannot remain registered and not abide by these rules. Refusal to follow standards is a offence that can lead to warnings, probation, suspensions and being struck off.

    As far as I’m aware, this document asks you to sign it “regardless of the legal entity” thus asking you to disregard that entity. Asking you to disregard that entity could be seen as breaking the rules of registration, even if no specific rule is broken.

  3. symball August 25, 2009 at 16:52 #

    I’m not sure how it works in the US- but here in the UK the law of the land trumps any silly bit of paper you download off the internet.
    This is just another way for ignorant anti vax loons to turn around to their equally deluded friends (anyone with any sense will have disowned them by this stage in their lunacy)and say I told you so.

    • Sullivan August 25, 2009 at 18:53 #


      good point. You can’t sign away a right.

      That document is so disingenuous as to be laughable.

  4. Ringside Seat August 25, 2009 at 20:23 #


  5. David N. Brown August 25, 2009 at 22:55 #

    The last paragraph strikes me as a parody of the liability waivers hospitals ask patients to sign… pretty good parody, too. I’d give a benefit of a doubt whether the author intended this as more than a work of satire.

  6. Sullivan August 25, 2009 at 23:30 #

    It would be interesting to ask the author his intention.

    Many are taking this seriously.

    I was given a form by an acquaintance of mine for the doctor to fill out in regards to vaccinations. I found it to be very well written and a must for every parent or guardian to submit to their physician. The author of this document is unknown but I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for the hard work to create this excellent form.

    Mercola (one of the strange doctor-websites) at least notes that no doctor will sign it. But he recommends bringing it along to note the doctor’s reaction. This right before he quotes a big section from the so-called “national vaccine information center”.

    I doubt many physicians would even get to the final paragraph, actually. The intent is clear from the beginning.

  7. David N. Brown August 26, 2009 at 10:15 #

    If there’s no named author, then it’s probably not possible to identify him/her. It’s quite possible that there’s already two or more versions floating around. One thing I think can be known: A reference to “aborted babies” points to a religious/political conservative… I’ve done a little unpublished analysis of this kind on the Procter and Gamble/ Satanism “xeroxlore”. A significant conclusion I have drawn is that these things (i call them “amateur media”) circulate mainly in a “sectarian” source group, but may spread to the general public. In this case, it may be that the people taking it seriously are NOT affiliated with organized anti-vaccine groups.

  8. dr treg August 26, 2009 at 16:25 #

    An interesting theoritical dilemma for the Physician administering the immunizations.
    1. The medical literature generally agrees that there is no evidence that immunizations cause autism.
    2. The administering Physician is requested to sign a legal document confirming this to be the case.
    Shouldnt signing such a legal document give further credence to the argument that immunizations do not cause autism and lead to further reassurance amongst the parents of children who bring their children in for immunizations.
    Is this not an opportunity for Physicians to further reassure parents and clear up this matter once and for all?

  9. Another Voice August 26, 2009 at 21:50 #

    I am sure that the person supplying this on the internet is just thrilled to see it being discussed. I hope that they carry a similar warranty when they enter the ER.

    I don’t understand why doctors would not merely hand out a small note that says in the event of emergency please contact Jenny, and quickly move to the next patient.

  10. Antaeus Feldspar September 23, 2009 at 04:57 #

    2. The administering Physician is requested to sign a legal document confirming this to be the case.

    If you have any right to the “Dr.” part of your pseudonym then you’ll certainly understand that the side-effects are too drastic to risk for the theoretical benefit to be gained.

  11. Erwin Alber September 26, 2009 at 02:33 #

    It seems that the document is intended as a deterrent to vaccnate, as quite obviously no doctor would sign it. It is meant to be an educational tool for both doctors and parents,as most doctors AND parents have very little if any idea about the contents of vaccines, and therefore what is being injected into babies and children. The document consequently serves the purpose of raising awareness of what’s in vaccines, which are basically a cocktail of toxic ingedients that are completely incompatible with a living organism.

    The mere suggestion that this noxious brew prevents diseases is so ludicrous that one wonders how it is that supposedly intelligent and well educated adults like doctors and even scientists subscribe to such nonsense.

    Apart as a figment of many people’s including medical doctors’ imagination, vaccinations have absolutely nothing to do with disease prevention. Vaccines have never protected anyone against a disease or saved anyone’s life, let alone the lives of millions.

    Infectious disease mortality graphs show that most of the remarkable decline in the number of deaths from infectious diseases over the past century occurred BEFORE vaccines were ever used, and that their introduction made no difference whatsoever; the decline continued as if nothing had happened, or even slowing in some cases.

    In other words, vaccination is a monstrous scam, an organised criminal enterprise, a gigantic hoax, child abuse and a crme against humanity all rolled into one. It follows that there is no such thing as infomed consent, but only informed non-consent or uniformed consent.

    Now we have the staged swine flu swindle to contend with, designed to rip us off to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars of tax-payer money, by selling useless and dangerous Tamiflu and vaccines to governments under the sway of the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO. Evidence also shows that the swine flu swindle is being pushed as part of a genocidal agenda designed to drastically reduce the world population. How ironic that a procedure invented to save lives is now apparently being put to use to kill up to 6 billion people, or 90% of the world’s population, under the guise of disease prevention.

  12. Dedj September 26, 2009 at 02:42 #

    Or it could be you that’s wrong.

    Hmm, who to go with?

    Relevantly trained and qualified scientists, doctors, nurses, pathologists, epideimiolgists and the like.


    Some guy on the internet somewhere.

    Hard choice. No doubt I’ll be told to ‘look it up’ by a guy who doesn’t appear to be able to tell the difference between excess deaths and rates of incidence.

    It’s been done before, seen before, and you’re certianly nothing new, radical, or even all that interesting.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: