Note from Tim Bolen: I have been saving this article from my friend Rick Jaffe Esq for the right time – and that time is now…
Why? Rick has outlined, very astutely, the globalist’s plan for America’s children using the USA Childhood Vaccine Program – taking children away from the home and making them wards of the State. He figured out their whole plan and outlined it for us all to look at, explaining in detail what they are trying to do…
Why did I hold onto this? Because the anti-vaxxer movement in the US has, so to speak, taken a baseball bat to the pro-vaxxers, making vaccines a major issue in Presidential Election 2016. Did that work for us? Yup – So much so, that we will get a “Vaccine Safety Commission” out of it, and we will use that Commission to grind the Vaccine Construction into fish food…
I have been very carefully observing the liberal Democrats’ reaction to the Trump victory, and I cannot help but laugh, with sheer joy, as the liberal Democrats self destruct with their screaming “demonstrations,” pissing off normal Americans with their spoiled-three-year-old, lie-down-on-the-floor-and-kick-their-feet, antics.
So, for your reading enjoyment just below is Rick’s analysis of how the liberal Democrats intend to proceed… and how to stop them dead in their tracks…
Vaccine concerned (VC) folks decry the recent loss of the personal belief exemption via SB 277, and feel like they’ve been abducted to some kind of communist state. (But hey, ever been to Berkeley!)
The present legal reality is that we don’t have mandatory or forced vaccinations here. Rather, vaccines are required for people to engage in certain institutional activities; e.g., kids who want to go to school, or adults who want to work with kids or in health care.
Neither California, nor any other state (that I am aware of) forces a person to be vaccinated. Texas tried to force the HPV/Gardisal vaccination on young girls, but that was shot down.
But alas, we just might get forced childhood vaccination here in California, if I’m reading the tea leaves right.
But that would be unconstitutional right? Not necessarily. In fact, the oft-cited original constitutional case on mandatory vaccination, Jacobson v Commonwealth of Mass. held that the state can force people to get vaccinated. True, the opinion said so in the context of a public epidemic, but that’s just a detail, and wouldn’t necessarily stop the state from compelling a vaccine program not tied to an actual outbreak, especially given all of the decisions in the last one hundred years which have limited a person’s ability to challenge a state’s pro-vaccination policies.
So let’s say some self-proclaimed well-meaning folks and some big business interests wanted to force every child in a state, say California for example,to get every conceivable vaccine the vaccine manufacturers now or in the future push? How should they do it, hypothetically?
HOW TO FORCE ALL KIDS TO BE VACCINATED IN A FEW (RELATIVELY) EASY STEPS…
Step 1
First, if the state has a personal belief exemption, get rid of it.
SB 277: CHECK
Step 2
Even the most rabid pro-vaxxers acknowledge that there have to be some temporary medical exemptions for kids with very serious diseases who are undergoing immunocompromising treatment.
The second step is to limit medical exemptions to the very few contraindications listed on each vaccine’s label and for only the short duration of the labeled contraindication.
Limiting exemptions to labeled contraindications essentially eliminates all blanket medical exemptions from vaccination, because most pro-vaxxers believe there are no medical conditions which justify an exemption from all vaccinations throughout childhood (maybe one, death, but Phama is probably thinking about a workaround for that too).
But the ugly reality for the hypothetical folks who want every child vaccinated is that there are a fair number of VC docs who will probably continue to write medical exemptions. Why? Because under SB 277, a medical exemption which complies with the law is not reversible or reviewable by a school.
So it’s absolutely vital to dissuade the VC docs from writing exemptions.
How? Simple: scare them. How? Two obvious tactics:
First, file charges against a highly visible VC doc CHECK
See my press release on Bob Sears’ cases:
Here is my original post on Bob’s case:
http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/09/09/begins-first-accusation-filed-vaccine-exemption-writing-doc/
Second, make a public announcement that docs who issue medical exemptions which don’t meet the “standard of care” (i.e., are not forever contraindicated by the package label of each and every vaccine for which the exemption is sought, will be prosecuted by the board. (And by the way there are no such recognized complete exemptions according to the CDC and AAP).
The Medical Board’s recent announcement. CHECK
(See my last post)
How to force vaccination on the rest?
What about the home schoolers and parents who manage to get a non-standard of care full and indefinite medical exemption from the few and brave VC docs who still write exemptions? So what should the pro-vaxers who want to mandate vaccination for all children do?
Before I tell you, let me give you some legal background on parental rights. I’ve had extensive involvement with one very discrete aspect of parental rights, based on my work with CAM cancer clinics and in particular, a well know Texas clinic that has treated thousands of children with advanced cancer. (See chapters two and three in Galileo’s Lawyer. http://rickjaffeesq.com/
Not to digress, but there are no Christian Scientist children with serious medical conditions
Here’s the short of it: a person can refuse necessary medical treatment for him or herself, but a parent cannot decide to withhold needed medical treatment for a child.
Not only is there no parental constitutional right to withhold necessary medical treatment from your own child, if a parent does not allow a child to receive necessary medical treatment for a serious medical condition, the parent’s legal custody will be temporarily terminated, and a guardian will be appointed to make medical decisions on the child’s behalf.
This has happened dozens of times across the country in cancer cases. Most are familiar with the common scenario. A child is diagnosed with advanced cancer, for which there is a supposedly curative or beneficial treatment. The parents refuse because of religious/philosophical reasons or because the parents don’t like the side effects of the recommended treatment and want to go the “natural way.”
After failing to convince the parents, the doctor (most often a chemotherapist) contacts the state child protective services. Eventually the case lands in family court. After a hearing, the parents are ordered to produce their child for treatment, or the parents lose legal custody of their child and a guardian is appointed who makes the decision for the child to undergo the treatment. For young children, under 10 or 12, the courts always order the conventional treatment. My rule of thumb is that if the kid can drive to the hearing, he/she may get to decide. But still, for young children, judges always force the child to receive necessary or potentially life-saving treatment, regardless of the philosophical beliefs or wishes of the parents.
It gets more complicated when the parents want to go with an alternative to conventional treatment and the alternative treatment has some rational basis and/or where there is a semi reputable doctor who can vouch for the alternative treatment. But the point is that not giving treatment to a child who has a serious medical condition where there are treatment options, is not an option a judge will consider.
In short, parental rights, and their opinions and beliefs are largely irrelevant in these kind of family court cases. In other words, parents do not have the right to withhold medical treatment/interventions deemed medically necessary for the health of the child. And there will never be such a right.
Yes, there are cases which talk about constitutionally protected parental rights, especially in the context of visitation rights, meaning a parent’s right to limit a grandparent’s visitation rights. But no case has ever applied a parental right to allow a parent to deny necessary medical care to his/her child.
Notwithstanding all of the above, obviously parents make medical decisions for their children all the time, and obviously their judgment is usually never questioned, except in the rare case of a principled basis refusal to allow conventional or any other needed treatment.
So let’s now go back to a hypothetical plan to mandate vaccinations for all children.
I suppose, you could try a frontal assault, by simply proposing a law requiring all children to be vaccinated according to the AAP and CDC guidelines. But that’s an emotional, hot button issue as the SB 277 battle showed, and it would be very messy. And remember, parents do have some rights and do initially make all medical decisions for their children.
Parental rights, hmmm. But there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people out there, (more than you would think based on recent events) and sometimes parents don’t act in their child’s best interest. Hmmm. What about the rights of the child? And can the rights of the child be in conflict with the decision and rights of the parents? Clearly so, as the cancer chemotherapy cases show.
Step 3: Children have rights too!
So the next step is to obtain legislative acknowledgement that children have rights independent of the rights and responsibilities of their parents. The beauty of this is how do you argue against the rights of children? The key is to create a bunch of general, obvious and innocuous sounding rights that won’t raise a heated fight like SB 277. The bill should create the obvious sounding right that kids are entitled to parents who make decisions in their child’s best interest. Go argue with that.
Equally obvious and seemingly innocuous is a child’s right to have “appropriate” health care. (who decides what is appropriate is the question of course). These are the two sleeper rights needed to effectuate the plan. The play would be to hide these sleeper rights in other even more obvious rights using unassailable buzz words like a “safe environment”, “emotional well-being” “social development.” What kind of jerk would oppose a bill ensuring that children have the tools to optimally develop?
How many rights? More than a few and less than ten. I’m spit-balling here, but seven sounds about right.
A tactical decision: Who should carry the bill? You don’t want to raise unnecessary concerns. It could be anyone, but it shouldn’t be the guy who spearhearded SB 277, Peter Pan or whatever his name was. Anyone but him, if what you want to hide what you’re really doing. But then, maybe a guy like that sees himself as the medical savior of all these poor unvaccinated kids. Anyway, Peter wouldn’t be my pick to lead the fight, if the goal is to pass this bill quietly.
So where are we hypothetically? SB 18 has been recently introduced by none other than Peter Pan aka Dr. Richard Pan, and the bill does it all.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18
SB 18: CHECK
Step 4
But how to put some meat on the bare bones of these general, highly laudatory rights, including the right to have parents make correct medical decisions and a child’s rights to have “appropriate medical care”?
The best way would be to have the bill call for research based policy recommendations on these rights to ensure that all children are benefited equally by these rights. Also, say further legislation effectuating these policy recommendations will be forthcoming. These things take time, so give it a relatively long target date, maybe five or half dozen years.
After the bill is passed, create some special blue ribbon committee of recognized experts of the relevant medical specialties and overseeing organizations. Hey, how about the American Association of Pediatrics, the federal Center for Disease Control and the State Department of Health. Completely beyond reproach right?
The panel will have a bunch of meetings, commission reports to make it look as if it is actually investigating the issue. But it’s just windowdressing. The actual results of the panel are already known by the supporters of the bill and the panel members.
I’m going to pull out my crystal ball, go out on a limb and tell you the results of this hypothetical blue ribbon panel, years before the panel is formed or releases its findings: Here they are:
1. Childhood vaccines are thoroughly tested before they are released to the public.
2. Serious side effects from vaccines are extremely rare.
3. Despite the all the hysterical allegations, there is no proven causal connection between any childhood vaccine and any physical or mental disease, or any abnormal childhood developmental condition.
4. The vaccines administered to children per the most recent fully proven vaccine schedule dramatically reduce a child’s likelihood of contracting the disease which is the target of the vaccine.
5. The greater the percentage of children vaccinated, the greater the “herd immulogical” response which protects all vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
6. Based on the foregoing, there is no rational basis for any parent to withhold any childhood vaccine, except for a medically justifiable reason.
7. Medical exemptions from vaccinations should be based solely on a specific vaccine’s contraindications stated on the vaccine’s label or package insert and only for the duration of the medical condition justifying the temporary exemption.
8. Because of the uncontroverted scientific evidence in support of childhood vaccination, all children have the state constitutional right to obtain all vaccines recommended by the AAP and CDC.
9. To effectuate that right and promote the well-being of children, all parents have an obligation to fully vaccinate their children, unless there is a specifically recognized temporary contraindication.
10. The state should use all means at its disposal to enforced the child’s constitutional rights.
The panel members will receive the thanks of a grateful state (and whatever other hypothetical benefits they and their friends may obtain).
So what would happen next?
Here’s what I would do if I was charged with implementing these newly flushed-out rights:
Have local schools pick the heathiest looking vaccine medically exempt students. (An easy task since it’s rumored that unvaccinated kids are actually much healthier than their vaccinated co-students.)
File complaints against the vaccine exemption issuing docs, because there’s never enough pressure than can be put on docs who put their patients at risk of preventable disease and endanger “herd immunity.”
Contact California Child Protective Services and complain about the parents’ medical abuse based on their failure to protect the child’s constitutionally protected health rights. CPS will do a visit, and if that doesn’t work, a proceeding against the parents for violating their child’s state constitution rights to “appropriate medical care,” and forcing them to act in the best interests of their child would be initiated.
Eventually the case will land in the California Supreme Court, but if the issue is framed as a child’s right to necessary medical treatment vs. the parents’ right to withhold such treatment, the VC community won’t like the result.
But that decision won’t be for years, In the interim, there will be some high-profile CPS cases filed, and that surely will have a chilling effect and impact the decisionmaking of parents.
This is all hypothetical, except it isn’t.
It’s obviously happening right now. Opposing SB 18 is a good place to begin. Better still, use this bill as a vehicle to reopen the public debate about vaccine safety, efficacy and herd immunity.
My view is that the VC community will never achieve anything by asserting what is viewed as a constitutional right of the few to infect or put at risk the many. Instead, focus on the science, or lack thereof.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com
Safe schmafe,
you’ve picked the wrong argument!
Are vaccines safe – no!
Is there any real evidence that they do anything useful – no!
HOWEVER!!
Just so long as people BELIEVE that there are such things as infectious diseases and that the human body needs external help to “prevent” them, then fear, bred in ignorance, will lead the majority to take the vaccines because they MIGHT do something useful.
THE RIGHT ARGUMENT is to challenge the vaccine proponents to prove that there are such things as infectious diseases and, further, that viruses actually exist.
I do know that the medico-pharmaceutical fraternity likes to portray these as a given and that we are indoctrinated from day one in school to believe these suppositions but there is, in fact, not only NO hard evidence for infectious disease caused by microbes but also all available evidence shows that the hypothesis is not and never could be true.
The “Godfather” of this concept, Louis Pasteur knew it was not true when he decided to use his political and financial contacts to promote it. Even his own Professor in the University of Paris, Pierre Bechámp, proved to him that it could not be true. In Pasteur’s memoirs, opened many decades after his death, he openly admits that he falsified data to gain the wealth and prestige he so craved. The CDC, as we know, follows in his footsteps. But still, the deliberate lie is portrayed in all media as unassailable truth – a truth which is crumbling in the light of modern scientific knowledge but still a belief which is, for 99.9% of people, unquestionable.
What if it were generally known that bacteria do not cause disease but are part of a natural, symbiotic solution to disease? Would it not then be obvious that chemically attacking the natural solution could only create “chronic” and “incurable” diseases – things unknown to non-pharmaceutical modalities? Would you not expect that adding toxins to a system which is trying to naturally detoxify itself is going to cause problems so great that the “solutions” become the largest single cause of death?
What if you knew that there is no direct evidence that viruses actually exist? That their existence is merely inferred from the presence of proteins which are PRESUMED to be antibodies, i.e. pure unsubstantiated guesswork? That a very substantial reward for proof of the existence of viruses has been on offer for some years and, to date, no takers?
What if the entire foundation of “Modern Medicine” were known to be a complete fantasy having no point of contact with reality? What would your stance on vaccination be then?
Although the major work showing all this and what the REAL causes of disease are is still being written, there is a document called “The Flu Fairy Tale” (just Google it) which takes this one example and describes in great detail not only what actually DOES happen – which is very different to medico-pharmaceutical propaganda – and shows that, by tackling the real cause, influenza can be completely avoided at zero cost or overcome in a very short time.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
To those who have more experience and connections in political matters than I do:
How feasible would it be to enact amendments to state constitutions that explicitly secure two things?
1) Medical freedom: individuals have complete authority to receive or refuse any and all medical or health treatments without intervention by the state.
2) Parental rights: parents are the ultimate authority over their children and the state has no authority to challenge, coerce, or override their medical, educational, etc decisions.
Obviously these would need to be well-constructed and air-tight, leaving the state and monied interests no weasel room.
Also, I think the most feasible plan would be to first target a few most amenable states then build from there.
No state legislature has power to abrogate the universal right to Informed Consent. Let’s let our representatives and the new president here us: No Vax Mandates! Easily send emails: http://tinyurl.com/vaccinepolicy – this action item sends to the White House, to your governor (so, for Californians that would be Jerry Brownshirt), state and federal representatives.
Karma, you are on the right track with your thesis. You are correct that there is no such thing as virus/bacteria caused diseases (trillions of bacteria can lead to poisoning but they don’t autonomously replicate inside our bodies in the way germ theory posits they do).
Indeed, if the germ theory were true, doctors would drop dead immediately after they started their jobs. We can go even further and say that a self-replicating pathogen is in fact mathematically impossible.
And your thesis on stress is very close. But it is not that stress leaves us vulnerable. Stress causes physiological responses that are designed to help us cope with whatever evolution/God/mother Nature thinks is causing the stress.
For example, if we think we are going to die then our creator deems that the thing that is causing this “stress” is something trying to kill and eat us. So our physiological response is an increased lung capacity (increased respiration allows us to run faster). For an animal this is resolved quickly (either by escaping or just being eaten) for a human the stress cause may be something more like a doctor telling you you are going to die. You can’t physically outrun this so the increased lung capacity becomes increased lung cells (lung cancer) over a matter of weeks.
We think that the lung cancer is unequivocally bad but in actual fact it is there because our Creator/evolution etc has considered it necessary for survival – albeit in a different environment than the one we are used to.
Other than poisoning, all disease is of this form. The initial physiological change is to assist us overcome the “stress” factor. Indeed, it is typically after we overcome the stress factor that we actually truly feel sick. This makes sense – we want to be able to run faster when we are in the increased lung capacity stage. When we resolve this (animals do so easily but humans often do not) we feel sick and cough up blood (tuberculosis) because once we have outrun the lion we have a few spare moments to feel sick and recover.
No wonder then that so many people get sick when they go away (overseas or domestically) and blame it on strange foods. They feel happy and relaxed now they have left their place of stress so their body goes into healing which is unpleasant.