Vaccine Liability Forms: Why NOT to Use Them!
This article may be freely shared.
The phrase “Vaccine Liability Forms” refers to forms that would make doctors liable for the harm caused by the vaccines they administer if a doctor signed one. From time to time these circulate around the aware community with the recommendation that we ask doctors to sign them. The premise seems to be that doctors will stop pressuring you to vaccinate if you ask them to assume liability for any resulting adverse effects, because when confronted with this, they will have to admit that vaccinating has serious risks.
These forms are widely circulated, their use encouraged, because the idea of getting doctors to change their position on vaccines, of “extracting a confession” or educating them is appealing. But we scrutinized further, we might see that use of these forms comes with serious risks. Please allow me to explain.
First, as to minor children, vaccines are required by law for school and daycare enrollment in all states. In some states they’re also required separate from daycare or school enrollment. A doctor’s signature on a liability form won’t change those legal requirements. Whenever vaccines are required, there are only three legal options: 1) vaccinate; 2) exercise an exemption if you qualify; or, 3) change conditions so the requirement no longer applies, so as homeschooling in those states that don’t require homeschooled children to be vaccinated.
If the issue is solely about a doctor’s refusal to treat any unvaccinated child, see: “Can Doctors Legally Refuse to Treat Unvaccinated Children?” at vaccinerights.substack.com.
Next, whether the issue concerns vaccinating children or adults, no doctor (or employer) would ever sign such a form. They won’t assume additional liability risks without a compelling reason to do so. But if the point is to say, “well, if you’re not willing to take responsibility for the consequences of your recommendation, you can’t expect me to follow it,” that takes us back to the first point above: A doctor’s or employer’s refusal to sign a form doesn’t remove the mandate.
Now, the potentially dangerous part, regarding children: Doctors are “mandated reporters.” They are legally required to report suspected child neglect and abuse to local social service agencies. If an unvaccinated child’s unvaccinated status is unlawful—if the child is subject to mandatory vaccines but is neither vaccinated nor exempt (the only two legal statuses whenever vaccines are legally required)—the child is, technically, a victim of medical neglect, regardless of the practical reality that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones. We often confuse what we think the law *should* be with what it actually *is,* mistakenly assuming that we have rights whenever that seems reasonable or logical instead of checking to see what current law actually is in any given situation. Unfortunately, health laws are based on a massively corrupt healthcare system, so current rights do not always fit our logical assumptions. Parents using these forms may unwittingly expose themselves to accusations of medically neglecting their child, which they may technically be doing—unwittingly, of course. Trust me, you don’t want to get sucked into that vortex. Once an investigation is opened, it runs its course until reaching a conclusion; and the conclusion may be only as “reasonable” as the corrupt healthcare system driving it. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to rely on such processes to reach reasonable conclusions until the underling corruption driving healthcare is addressed.
The people recommending these forms may be at risk, too. If the person relying on their recommendation suffers harm as a result, they may want to hold the recommender responsible. While most recommenders have the best of intentions, that isn’t a shield to their potential liability. The widespread sharing of these forms may ultimately be to our collective disadvantage. It serves to undermine our movement by taking up time that could be spent more productively on other activities, and by potentially getting some parents into difficult situations. These forms may have originally been introduced, and repeatedly introduced thereafter, by disinformation agents working for pharma. But whether deliberate or not, these forms serve as a manipulation technique. No one’s stupid or careless for falling for it. It takes advantage of human psychological vulnerabilities that we all have. We, the aware, are also manipulated, and far more extensively than we realize, as psychology is a weapon that hides its own use. It operates on and from the subconscious where it invisibly drives conscious level perception. (See Fear vs. Knowledge for an explanation of how psychological manipulation operates in both sleeper and aware communities, keeping sleepers asleep to the problem and the aware community asleep to real solutions. The importance of this can’t be overstated.)
Finally, if these forms are used as a vehicle to educate doctors, this honorable intent is, as a practical matter, usually futile. They are the experts whose job is to educate us in a one-way “them-to-us” communication. Most doctors are not open to a two-way discussion, at least as it would concern us educating them. But on a more fundamental level, pro-vaccine people are pro-vaccine because of psychological manipulation that literally prevents them from being *able* to hear information that conflicts with their (externally implanted) false narrative. They reject truth and those asserting it (that would be us), because we appear illogical, crazy to them. Add to this the logistical reality that doctors schedule their days to maximize profit—to see as many patients as possible in their available time—so they don’t have time to hear our opinions, anyway. The one time I got a doctor to listen to me share my research (nearly 30 years ago; that’s a lot less likely to happen today), we spent an hour, after which he politely complemented my research, billed me his full hourly rate (ouch!), and made no changes to his vaccine policy. The brainwashing is powerful. It leaves its victims literally *unable* to “hear” anything outside of the false narrative.
I’ve never heard of a doctor signing one of these forms or backing off because someone presented one of these forms, though perhaps in rare instances that happens? I’ve never heard of a recommender being accused of causing someone else’s serious problems for having used a doctor liability form. I’ve heard of many instances where vaccination has been a factor in child protective services investigations. So while I can’t say using a liability form could never produce a productive outcome, there’s potential for that to cause serious problems in some situations. The world has become increasingly less accommodating to non-vaccinators over recent years. But what’s most important is that you have sufficient information to make informed decisions, that you don’t fall into a potential trap because your first impression was that it “sounded good.” Dig deeper, and from there, do what you feel is best for you in your situation. If possible, consult an experienced local attorney whenever serious legal issues are involved. Our legal systems are more complex than most of us realize.
Alan Phillips, J.D.
Vaccine Rights Legal Expert
Friends, I Need Your Help! Please consider a one-time or small monthly donation to help keep these articles coming. Any amount helps!
Have an exemption question? Email email@example.com. Some questions may be addressed in future articles (with anonymity).
Alan Phillips, J.D., is the nation’s leading vaccine rights legal expert, the only person who’s ever been a fulltime attorney with exemptions, who’s worked in all 3 dozen exemption contexts and sub-contexts (indeed, the only one who can name ½ of them), and who’s worked with clients, attorneys, legislators, and activists nationally for over two decades. For exemption assistance, see vaccinerights.com.