Ok, some of you were put-off by the “anti-vaxxer” moniker in my last article. Some suggested you’re all health freedom fighters. I’m not willing to bestow that laudatory title until I see a more cohesive, rational and convincing case made, though I’m sure I am a minority of one on this in the health freedom community.
How about the designator “vaccine-concerned” or “VC” for short? It’s neutral, accurately descriptive, and this is my post. From now on, I am going to refer to you as “vaccine-concerned” or “VC.” I mean to include both ends of the VC spectrum, and here are the ends of the spectrum as I see it.
For sure, you are not together.
At one end are those who want vaccination criminalized because it harms everyone who is vaccinated. It includes people who deny that vaccines have had any benefit to mankind, and that it’s all a pharma scheme to suck money from the masses. It also includes the personal freedom people who think the government has no right to force anyone to get any vaccine or impose any consequences on the unvaccinated, regardless of the perceived consequences that the ignorant majority and conventional scientists think will be caused by the unvaccinated.
At the other end of the spectrum are the folks who are concerned that there might be too many vaccines for kids right now, who accept some preservative-free vaccines for some serious diseases, unless there are sound medical contraindications. It also includes those who will compromise their personal freedom to get inoculations before traveling to some foreign countries where diseases survive which have been long extinct in this country. This end of the spectrum also includes those who understand that the VC, who have strongly-held and metaphysically true beliefs, have to acknowledge and work within the system in which they currently represent a minority view. Indeed, these folks even understand that their views are considered by the mainstream to be anti-science and fringe. (See the just published article in the New Yorker entitled “The Mistrust of Science” by mainstream surgeon, author (and medical establishment tool), Atul Gawande.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mistrust-of-science?mbid=nl_TNY%20Template%20-%20With%20Photo%20(51)&CNDID=25050591&spMailingID=9044825&spUserID=MTA5MjQwMzU2NDMzS0&spJobID=941025627&spReportId=OTQxMDI1NjI3S0
(I have to admit that his biography of cancer, The Emperor of All Maladies was breathtaking. Haven’t read his new book The Gene, but I will. I don’t recommend any of his writings to the VC. To borrow a phrase from an email I got about the prior post, it will just make your blood boil.)
Now that we are past the nomenclature, I’d like to address a criticism most colorfully phrased by a chiro who said that I should “grow a pair,” tell the docs how to solve the problem and give the VC parents what they need. Well, I’ve taken that criticism and the metaphor to heart, and I’ve come up with a simple solution which I think satisfies the “grow a pair” admonition.
There is a loosely formed, nascent California group of vaccine-concerned physicians. They approached me to file a direct legal challenge to SB 277. I declined. The July 1st deadline is fast approaching. I’m told that VC parents don’t know what to do, and desperately need a solution. So you want a simple and manly solution. Here it is: Each member of the VC group of physicians should write medical exemptions for any VC parent who comes to them. If the physician group wants, I’m sure Tim Bolen will post the physicians’ names and contact information to make it easier for the VC parents.
I point out that the California law does not require that the exemption be signed by a board certified pediatrician.
Any California licensed physician can write the exemption, and the decision is not challengeable by the school.
VC California licensed docs have the absolute power to grant the wishes of the VC community.
Of course, it would be best if there was a doctor/patient relationship. All the statute requires is:
“a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt . . . .” (Emphasis added by me)
So what’s the problem?
Many VC physicians have told me that vaccines are dangerous or there are too many of them given over too short a time. These physicians are convinced that the legitimate and best scientific evidence does not support vaccination, or at least the current vaccination schedule. If so, then all you are doing is writing a letter that the child should not receive medically unnecessary or unproven preventive treatment.
A lot of opinions…
In addition, VC advocates, including docs, have informed me that vaccines and/or the California vaccine mandate violates the Helsinki Declaration and the Nuremburg Code. If so, it surely violates the Hippocratic Oath because vaccines harm children, or so I am informed, and you all know the “first do no harm” thing. If forced vaccination violates these universal medical/ethical rules, which are morally superior to US law, and if the science overwhelmingly supports the rejection of vaccination (or even if science just does not support its use), as I am repeatedly told by the passionate VC community, then VC physicians have professional duty and a moral obligation to sign a medical exemption for every child of VC parents.
I would go even further; refusing to write exemption letters makes the VC physician complicit in what I am told is the greatest medical fraud in history, namely the perpetuation of the international vaccination hoax.
Writing exemption letters for all-comers would be a complete and perfect solution for the California VC community. But what about the physicians writing the letters?
Sure it’s possible that the schools and medical board might not appreciate the courage and principled views of the letter writers in helping the VC exercise their Constitutional rights, but since the real science is on their side, it should all work-out in the end. As long as the medical evidence is on your side and the experts are qualified and authoritative, any competent board attorney should be able to convince the fact finder (initially an administrative law judge) of the correctness and righteousness of the VC position. So you have nothing to worry about.
Besides, I’m told there are many California VC licensed physicians. So even if a few are lost to board sanction, the VC community could have its needs met for many years, or until the lawsuit(s) directly challenging the constitutionally of SB277 law is/are resolved in the VC’s favor, which I have been assured will happen.
SO BALLS TO THE WALLS! It’s time for the VC doctors to step-up and lead the fight.
I’m ready. Who’s with me?
Richard Jaffe, Esq.
(Now with a pair)
“VC physicians have professional duty and a moral obligation to sign a medical exemption for every child of VC parents.”
Absolutely agree with you Tim.
So let’s look at how that might work.
First of all, doctors routinely give medical advice to people based on the medical history given to the doctor by the person. A doctor can rely on the family medical history.
So, if a parent comes to a doctor and says that the history of my family is such that, in the words of the Supreme Court in Jacobsen vs Massachusetts, “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death” then the doctor is certainly justified in issuing the letter.
Why did you decline Richard Jaffe, esquire? If you now “have a pair” then why didn’t said “pair” help you to accept and bring lawsuit ? Seems you don’t have a pair at all now do you? Thanks Tim
I’m not an attorney (but am married to one). I’m a former legal assistant; from what I understand, this is the issue as far as litigating this vaccine issue in a court of law:
From what I understand (and have read), our courts have already stated they will rely on our medical institutions and what those institutions regard as ‘science’ with reference to vaccines (or any other health related issue). In other words, courts have deemed that a court of law is not the appropriate place within which to decide the science behind vaccines.
Courts have declared that they will recognize the authority and expertise of our medical institutions as it pertains to the vaccine issue.
Putting it yet another way, if you have medical institutions which our government relies on to formulate public policy on health related issues, and you deem those institutions as having integrity and having the expertise to formulate those policies, there is no court which will then rule ‘against’ those policies, set by those same institutions.
I think this is why it is so important, then, given the above, that Vaxxed is exposing the corruption within the CDC, for unless the corruption can be exposed for what it truly is, this paradigm shift (research showing vaccines and and do cause harm), within our legal/justice system, is not going to happen.
The above, if what I understand is correct, is why most qualified attorneys will not litigate this issue. They already know what the outcome is going to be; the courts have already stated in various court rulings that they will bend over backwards to uphold the findings of our ‘expert’ institutions as it pertains to the vaccine issue.
I have a vaccine injured son. His reactions as a four month old to the whole cell DPT vaccine almost took his life. He was given a medical exemption to the pertussis component of the whole cell DPT vaccine, for life. We live in California; we have never had any issues whatsoever when using our PBE when our son attended either public and/or private schools. Thank God he is no longer school age (and is now attending college), but my heart still goes out to all those CA parents who are now being confronted with this new law when it goes into effect.
Having said the above, what my attorney husband has shared with me regarding the law and how this issue applies within our legal system, has been just as difficult for me to accept as it has been for others who may not understand the legal challenges surrounding this vaccine issue.
No court of law will challenge (as of yet) what the CDC and other medical institutions, in any of its rulings. Our court system honors the mainstream science to-date, such as it is. No attorney is going to be able to overturn this mindset as things stand now.
Hopefully, now that Del Bigtree has just announced that Jason Chaffetz has been meeting with Dr. Thompson and a full Congressional investigation is now underway, things will change in the near future. Hope so, anyway.
THANK you, Richard, for providing a statement regarding the legal challenges surrounding this issue. But understand, as well, that the passion that all of us parents of vaccine injured children have, rules our hearts.
I watched helplessly as our son screamed a high pitched scream which lasted for over three hours, as my husband frantically paced up and down with our little one, who by then was banging his head on my husband’s chest. Our son was in enormous pain, then; thank goodness we had a pediatrician in Denver who heard our son’s screams over the phone, and explained to me that our son was indeed, suffering with a severe vaccine reaction.
I will never, never, never forget that moment. It is etched into my memory banks, forever. We quit vaccinating our son after the age of six months, but even still, we were told by our pediatric staff that our son would most likely suffer with severe learning disorder issues following that horrific vaccine reaction.
He did. It’s been absolute hell, but he’s recovered for the most part. I hope, Richard, that you will see the film Vaxxed, if you’ve not done so already and perhaps, at the same time, do a little more research into this vaccine issue.
Thanks.
You had a tough tim for sure bayareamom. Your husband is right. The resolution won’t come from a direct challenge to the law, and nothing will change big picture wise until scientificconsensus changes or a majority of legislators find the consensus is wrong. That’s where the focus should be. Vaxxed is a good start, but that’s all it is.
Consensus is/was wrong about fat and carbs, and that debate is a good model. Articles, books, data, and success in dieting, not as much emotion as in this debate. Hard to argue with someone who has had or claims child injured from vaccination, but it’s a double edged sword. You’re dismissed as overly emotional and not objective. My view anyway as a professional. Glad it worked out for your family ultimately.
Rick jaffe
Rick, your proposal seems very missconceived.
Any physicians who do more than a very minimal of exemptions, or who do ones which are not defensible according to the official version “science”, will get de-licensed and end up losing their jobs and homes. They thereafter won’t have any further influence on the system either, as they would no longer be “proper” medics. In the UK all the honest decent medics get trashed by the General Meddling Criminals.
Instead you have to first overturn the false “science”, with a full-frontal attack on the “policies” involved. Those recent pictures of Pseudnator Pan running away from deadly camera-shots suggests there’s already some fear on the other side of this scenario.
My first post was cautious and reasonable. It was criticized as too meek and not manly. If the vc docs feel so strongly about this and think the science is on their side, they should put their licenses where their mouths are and accept the consequences of their action.
Rick, Thanks for your advice. Each new piece of information is useful to someone in the autism world. It occurs to me now that perhaps you are unaware the the full implications of the autism situation and in fact, most of us dont think about them often. We really should. : We are not alone. There are hundreds of thousands of people injured by mercury in dentistry. Nearly as many suffering chronic mercury toxicity from the fish they eat . All the babies and children who suffered the mercury toxicity that is called “Kawasaki Disease” All of the millions of Americans, alive, or now dead or in the future who developed Alzheimers Disease from their flu vaccines, fish and mercury in their dental amalgams. The people going blind with macular degeneration. And that is not the end of the list for sure- and yet, up till now there is no unity . Everyone is in disarray. On the other side, their opponents- The makers of dental amalgams. the fishing and canning industry, the AMA the AAP the American Dental Association the CDC and their gigantic flock of public “Health” agents, the powerful Pharmaceutical industry, The coal industry, which pollutes the air with mercury, the gold mining industry that needs mercury for extraction of gold, and I am told there is still one entity of vast power above all of these who fears the awareness of mercury toxicity. God help us and thanks for your advice
Regarding the legality of vaccines. No matter how much you improve vaccines today, there will always be a chance of errors of “science” and errors of administration and errors of production. This is an invasive medical procedure and it has no place in modern life as a legal mandate. An individual should have the right to make his own decision to accept or reject such medical procedure or not.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people injured by mercury in dentistry.”
Actually according to my own evidence they number in the numerous *millions*. About 4 million in the UK alone.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299998797_Autism_adult_disability_and_%27workshy%27_Major_epidemics_being_caused_by_non-gamma-2_dental_amalgams
And more fully explained in a book which I’m just about ready to publish: “Experts Lying to You!” – http://www.pseudoexpertise.com .
I think the moniker “Safe-Vaxxer” would be a good fit for myself, and while it may be true vaccines are said to be considered “inherently unsafe” they surely *could* be made *alot* safer and we could start first by moving away from ‘injections’.(other options available).
But since it appears it will be quite awhile before humanity moves away from this barbaric practice and replaces it with something far less harmfull I would think pushing for greater vac safety (think Citizens for Safer Vaccines or CVS) is a direction that people need to put pressure on where it matters.
Using data from the Vaccine Court should show even the hardest core vaccine adherent that vaccines still have a long way to go to be made safer and without public pressure the companies that market these will never take the steps (or cost) to do so without huge public outcry and followup. It has historically most always been active citizens (and then begrudging regulators/politicians) that have forced safety standards onto unwilling profiteers and vaccines are no exception. If a politician can be armed as a proponent of vaccine safety and has that to stand on he/she will likely be more apt to take that stand than one that simply paints them as ‘anti-Vax’.
Too, I would take exception to Mr. Jaffe’s idea of “Mistrust of Science” possibly aimed at those who know the risk of vaccines. Having worked on metabolism and other studies for over 25 years I would say for myself there is no real mistrust of *science* perse, far from it. Rather the mistrust is in data integrity of any given study (and complete lack of studies in some cases) and mistrust in how financial and political considerations often seem to trump actual science. Where I work we simply can’t set around and decide what data to keep and what data to throw out so that the end result is made to artificially produce our sought after conclusions. Same goes for study design, we can’t simply get rid of controls etc. so that the possible effects of things like toxic adjuvants get masked and hidden by an artifical background. Good science in the public interest takes a NON-biased atmosphere which includes a NON-biased study design as well as scientists who are not being ‘coerced’ in reaching a specific outcome or conclusion but one that is simply accurate wherever that may fall. And of course it takes actually doing an adequate number of *reproduceable* studies and really wanting to find ‘truth’. I am extremely sceptical that this is the current direction of the vaccine program. We all need to make sure this changes ASAP, IMO.
That speech/article by Atul Gawande is a classic of utter cluelessness and insightless lack of self-criticalness. He doesn’t even get the hint from the fact that the more educated are the least trusting of his “science”. Such over-hyped celebs are so far up their own etc….
>”My first post was ….. criticized as too meek and not manly.”
Oh well. In my experience, adapting your work to criticism is not always an improvement!
>”they should put their licenses where their mouths are and accept the consequences of their action.”
Oh, the “should” word. Sure they “should”. If 50% of the MDs in the country did it the same day then it might cause an institutional revolution. But failing some amazing co-ordination, Dr Xyz as one of those career medics will be just destroying his career and ending up destitute, homeless and divorced. The main result of following such a “should” would be that all the honest docs end up delicensed. Probably even their sign-offs will be declared retrospectively void by the saintly overlords.
I don’t think there’s really much “manly” about putting all the risk on others. The first thing has to be for thousands of medics to get organised together, and only then go on some sort of risky warpath.
“I don’t think there’s really much “manly” about putting all the risk on others. The first thing has to be for thousands of medics to get organised together, and only then go on some sort of risky warpath.”
Completely agree.
Why will the court decide based on established Science? Where is the rationale to mandate medical procedures based on established science? That’s what i don’t understand. Forced purchase and use of a product, even one called biologic”, seems like a subject the court could decide on. Medical mandates do address civil rights issues. And medical science is based on theory and accepted practice anyway. Noone is asking a court to determine the validity of vaccine science or practice. But shouldn’t they weigh in on whether or not a child can attend school without the state mandating medical procedures?
If we don’t have legal ground on this, i shudder to think about other forced interventions on behalf of pharma science and allopathic medicine. CPS increasingly becomes involved with parental medical choice, sometimes taking medical custody. Forced choice of chemotherapy and radiation has happened. This is so utterly creepy, to think there may be no legit legal advocacy to support choice of treatment is astounding.
So, court will rely on established policy, even when procedures are not guaranteed to work or cure? That seems biased. But obviously, I’m not a lawyer. This whole thing is illogical to me, though.
Also , with all due respect, I think everyone needs to grow a pair- us parents included. This law is an inconvenience, and i resent the hell out of the state for attempting to intervene through coercion, with my inviolable rights to informed consent as an individual and parent.
In the end, I entered into a contract with the state, and they changed the tetms of the agreement. Shrug.
We are persons in the eyes of social contracts, but human beings in real life.
Of course in day to day life, this law is distressing, inconvenient and/or life altering, depending on each family’s situation. Philosophically speaking, I view the law as disturbing, but also merely an inconvenience. The state may control its own institutions, but we humans can benefit from a birds eye view while simultaneously navigating the logistics of this situation-which include both short and long term goals and strategies.
I agree that the movie Vaxxed and its related activities are useful, especially waking more people up, and creating a body of evidence for when the inevitable truth is finally apparent to all.
Meantime, citizens around the world and historically have always navigated despotic territory, keeping their human goals in mind. Americans aren’t as used to having to do this, perhaps relying too heavily on others to take action on their rights. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that good stuff. Less hysterical whining, more proactive solutions for short and long term.
>Why will the court decide based on established Science?
Because judges are part of the establishment and go along with the other parts of the establishment, regardless of what facts or evidence or reason should dictate. And judges are paid by the regime, no matter how often they are declared to be independent or impartial. Oh, hang on, only bad countries controlled by Putin have regimes, lol.
>Where is the rationale…..
Courts have absolutely zilch to do with rationality in my experience.
> seems like a subject the court could decide on.
In my own high court challenge to dental amalgam, I presented a clear argument to the regime’s poodles that the official position of “harmless” amalgam was a pile of pseudoscience lies, but they preferred to just “reason” that the defendant regime declares amalgam to be harmless, so “therefore” it is anyway, end of case.
>And medical science is based on theory and accepted practice anyway.
Which planet are you communicating from here?
>This whole thing is illogical to me,
That’s the entire justice system in one word.
Richard – there is already precedence with Wong Wai v Williamson that this law does violate Equal Protection. When mandatory vaccinations are implemented, they have to apply to everyone equally in like condition.
SB277 will take 6 years to implement with the vast majority of the approximately 200,000 PBE students not fully vaccinated. So there is no “compelling interest” of a public health emergency that justifies SB277. And SB277 singles out and puts strict, mandatory requirements on a few thousand students, while most of the other public/private school students are unaffected. This law doesn’t apply to every child equally so it violates the 14th amendment Equal Protection. It is a very hard argument to make that only a few thousand school children should have to comply with mandatory vaccinations, while every other student in the school continues to have the right to be unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, i.e. “grandfathered in”, IEP status, homeless students.
In fact, Jacobson v Mass grappled with the same concern about Equal Protection. “It is said, however, that the statute, as interpreted by the state court, although making an exception in favor of children certified by a registered physician to be unfit subjects for vaccination, makes no exception in case of adults in like condition. But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO ALL IN LIKE CONDITION”.
As SB277 is currently written, mandatory vaccinations will not be applicable equally to all in like condition.