Dachel Media Update: SB277 Passes California Assembly 46 to 30
By Anne Dachel
Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump. The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD, an online supplement retailer for patients with special needs. The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD. Lee Silsby is one of the most respected compounding pharmacies in the country and is committed to serving the needs of the Autism community. OurkidsASD is an online retailer for nutritional supplements for patients with special needs. OurkidsASD carries thousands of products from more than 60 brands and offers free ground shipping on all orders.
#SB277 passed the California Assembly 46 to 30 today. From earlier reports:
The New York Times says SB 277 is "expected to be approved." Robert Kennedy's appearance is trivialized with no mention of his call for the end to the use of mercury in vaccines.
The Sacramento Observer also covered Kennedy and Muhammad's appearance on LA, only they actually told us what they talked about. The NY Times mentioned "a study" linking the MMR vaccine to autism in black boys, but they didn't tell us that William Thompson was a CDC scientist and that the findings were altered.
And while the Times mentioned Senator Pan, only the Sacramento Observer told us that he personally received pharma money in the amount of $95,000.
The Observer reported on the vaccine trials conducted in Los Angeles in 1989 on minorities without informed consent--the Times didn't. The Observer compared this action to Tuskegee.
The contrast is glaring. The truth is in the details--only the NY Times won't cover them.
June 25, 2015, Sacramento Observer: L.A. Makes Final Call Before "School Vaccine Bill" Vote
"Many at the town hall questioned why state legislators are moving forward with this piece of legislation after hearing the statements made by Dr. Thompson, especially when innocent children's safety may be at stake."
Robert Kennedy, Jr: "One of the problems is that because of the economic strength of the pharmaceutical industry, the vaccine makers, it's almost impossible to get this story out to the American public.
On June 18, the Sacramento Bee published a report disclosing that pharmaceutical companies spent nearly $3 million more during the 2013-2014 legislative session lobbying lawmakers, the governor, the state pharmacists' board and other agencies, according to state filings. They donated around $95,000 - the largest individual gift to a candidate - to Senator Pan who is SB 277's principal author.
June 25, 2015, New York Times: California Set to Make Vaccines Mandatory Despite Heated Opposition
Under a bill expected to be approved Thursday by state lawmakers, schoolchildren in California will be required to receive vaccinations unless there is a medical reason not to do so. The bill would end exemptions for personal or religious reasons, which parents who oppose vaccinations routinely request. The legislation would make California the largest state by far with such sweeping requirements for vaccinations, joining West Virginia and Mississippi, which have had similar laws for years.
. . .The measure has become one of the most closely watched and divisive issues in the State Capitol this year, with weeks of emotional debates and hundreds of protesting families and their children filling the halls. After Mr. Kennedy lent his star power to the opposition and showed the anti-vaccine film here in April, he likened mandatory vaccines to the Holocaust, a statement for which he later apologized.
The bill's sponsor, State Senator Richard Pan, Democrat of Sacramento and a pediatrician, has said he has received repeated threats, so worrisome that he asked for additional security for several events.
Despite the intense lobbying by each side, the science supporting vaccines is settled, and opponents of vaccines remain only a small if vocal minority. Doctors overwhelmingly recommend childhood vaccines - which have been credited with the elimination or near elimination of diseases like measles, mumps and rubella - and many pediatricians will not accept families who resist vaccines into their practices.
Medical studies purporting to show a link between vaccines and autism have been discredited, yet some parents and others cling to them as evidence that their children should not get the vaccinations. But if too many people in a given community are not vaccinated, doctors say, the so-called "herd immunity" factor that protects vulnerable people and others from these diseases breaks down.
. . . Scores of parents opposing the measure showed up at several hearings about the bill, speaking tearfully about children they believed had been harmed by vaccinations.
. . . The fight against the measure has produced some surprising alliances. At a town-hall-style meeting at a Church of Scientology in South Los Angeles this month, Mr. Kennedy appeared with Tony Muhammad, the western regional minister of the Nation of Islam, who spoke of a study that indicated a higher rate of autism in African-American boys who had received the measles vaccine. Mr. Muhammad criticized black legislators in California who voted in favor of the bill.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which is on sale now from Skyhorse Publishing.
The CA Senate voted to concur 24 Ayes to 14 Noes.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 29, 2015 at 03:45 PM
Check it out: https://twitter.com/search?q=%40JerryBrownGov%20%20father&src=typd
...despite the garbage Forbes article today on SB277 being a done deal.
Posted by: reader | June 29, 2015 at 12:35 AM
FYI, the facts are that Governor Jerry Brown's father signed a vaccine religious exemption bill INTO law in 1961, I've learned on Twitter.
Posted by: reader | June 28, 2015 at 05:07 PM
Didn't he date Linda Ronstadt who now has Alzheimer's? How in the heck did he get re-elected?
Posted by: @Denise | June 28, 2015 at 01:46 PM
Personally, I can't believe Gov. Jerry Brown will do anything to stop or turn this around. I lived in Fresno for one year of my life, 76-77. The year of the Great Drought of '77. ("If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down.") Being as old as I am, it's hard for me to believe he's The Gov again (he's even older.) Nope, what with This Drought, I don't think he's even paying attention. Good luck, California. And good luck to the rest of us if this isn't turned around.
Posted by: Denise Anderstrom Douglass | June 27, 2015 at 11:38 PM
"My husband once said that even if vaccines were to be proven completely safe AND effective, the procedure of vaccination should still be VOLUNTARY. PERIOD."
Exactly.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 26, 2015 at 11:41 PM
"Forced vaccination is unconstitutional whether the vaccines work or not..."
It's one thing to say it; it's another to be recognized IN A COURT OF LAW.
My husband once said that even if vaccines were to be proven completely safe AND effective, the procedure of vaccination should still be VOLUNTARY. PERIOD.
I long for the day when this won't be an issue and we can move on to something else. If only...
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 26, 2015 at 08:21 PM
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_277_vote_20150625_1048AM_asm_floor.html
One initial non-vote was switched to a no. I'm tempted to speculate on an engineered squeeze-through.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 26, 2015 at 07:34 PM
@bayareamon
Oh I know it's just a pipe dream but we all know
Forced vaccination is unconstitutional whether the vaccines work or not
Posted by: 4Bobby | June 26, 2015 at 07:08 PM
MUST SEE FLOOR SPEECHES: SB277 CA Assembly Floor Vote - June 25 2015
https://www.yo.utube.com/watch?v=M_4lp076g3g
NOTE: #SB277 Win to defeat only a 7 VOTE SWING if abstentions joined nays. 46-30-3 to 39-40-0 in 7. What a shame.
Posted by: reader | June 26, 2015 at 05:03 PM
To back up my point, here is an abstract through Case Law, which explains the dilemma one would have in presenting vaccine issues in a court of law:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4D8h46wkDwsJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1043832.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"...Although we do not apply the second prong, regarding the conclusiveness of the expert's opinion, because it would necessitate going to the merits of the expert's opinion prior to a review of credentials, we do believe that two of the factors are relevant in our analysis-those being whether the field of expertise is complex and whether the area of expertise is central to the resolution of the lawsuit. In the present case, clearly the level of complexity regarding the establishment of a causal relationship between the administration of a vaccine containing thimerosal and the onset of autism is complex; to the extent that “establishing” such a conclusion is even possible, it involves the extrapolation from, and scientific review of, numerous studies spanning a gamut of fields and methodologies, and most particularly, available epidemiological studies. As Blackwells' counsel stated during oral argument before this Court, their experts' causal conclusions are based on: (1) peer reviewed published epidemiological studies; (2) in vitro studies; (3) toxicological studies; (4) pharmacokinetic 30 studies that discuss the distribution of mercury throughout the body; (5) diagnostic tests of blood “to determine the level of gluthionine in the body, which is a molecule necessary to eliminate mercury”; (6) porphyrin urine analysis to determine mercury toxicity; (7) differential diagnosis; and (8) “extrapolation from animal studies and from other in vitro studies.” It is noteworthy also, as the IOM Committee recognized in its 2004 Report, that any conclusion regarding the cause of autism is complicated by the fact that “autism,” itself, is not a single disorder but a “set of developmental disorders characterized by sustained impairments in social interaction [and] communication,” and that “autism,” and “autistic spectrum disorders” refer to a “broad[ ] group of pervasive developmental disorders.” IOM Report, at 3-4 (2004) (emphasis added).
That the complex field of epidemiology is central to the resolution of the lawsuit, moreover, is not disputed. The Blackwells have never challenged Judge Berger's finding that epidemiology, primarily, is the relevant field for establishing a causal relationship, nor do they dispute that the establishment of a causal relationship is dispositive to the outcome of the lawsuit. Their contention, rather, is that their experts were qualified to offer conclusions based on epidemiological principles..."
There are SO many issues regarding the above. We all know the issues with epidemiological studies regarding vaccines. But you can clearly see where they go with this issue when reading the above.
Case after case reveals where the courts would most likely rule on this vaccine issue.
Obviously, when you've got the entire scientific realm RIGGED so as to present its SCIENCE in the light in which they choose to 'prove' the outcome they're looking for, and that rigged science is what the court system relies upon in which to determine rulings...well, you can see where it's going.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'they've' got it all sewn up, but from what I've witnessed throughout these many, many years, they're pretty damned close.
Unless, of course, this million man march breaks through the impasse (and I hope it does).
ENOUGH of the lies, already. I hope I live to see the day when TRUTH wills out (and not just with this vaccine issue).
The inability to speak Truth down here just sickens me...
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 26, 2015 at 02:55 PM
"You took the words right out of my mouth. What is needed now is a supreme court ruling guaranteeing a philosophical exemption to vaccines and any other medical procedures in all 50 states."
Oh, I absolutely agree! But playing Devil's Advocate, you have to understand the the courts have already ruled THAT THEY WILL ABIDE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL SCIENCE when reviewing issues related to vaccination (pre vaccine court era).
From my understanding, unless/until there is legal precedent (somehow) showing the REAL science is being suppressed (as Dr. Brian Hooker has stated on numerous occasions), this dream we all have re the Supreme Court issuing a proclaimation that PBE's should be granted on a national basis...is just a pipe dream.
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 26, 2015 at 02:41 PM
This has all got to be put together the facts: disappearing brains for autism research, cord blood studies by doctors such as Dr. Bradstreet perhaps being tampered with, doctors being suicided. Autism in African Americsns at 4 times the rate and boys at 1in 42. This madness needs to stop!
Posted by: The madness needs to stop | June 26, 2015 at 01:57 PM
Interesting article from the San Jose Mercury News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_28380608/californias-vaccine-bill-state-assembly-passes-legislation-outlawing?source=infinite
"He knows the science. I've tracked his statements over the years on various issues, and he is aware of the need for vaccinations -- he knows how measles spreads,'' Pitney said. "The question is whether he sees this as an issue of religious freedom."
Controversy around the elimination of the "personal belief exemption" was spurred in California after a measles outbreak started last December at Disneyland.
If enacted into law, California would join only two other states -- Mississippi and West Virginia -- that permit only medical exemptions as legitimate reasons to sidestep vaccinations.
Hundreds of parents who oppose the legislation have rallied several times at the Capitol, saying the bill violates their parental rights. Other opponents believe that some vaccines are unsafe for some children.
Over the months that SB 277 has journeyed through the state Senate and Assembly, the governor's staff has repeatedly said that he "believes that vaccinations are profoundly important and a major public health benefit and any bill that reaches his desk will be closely considered."
HE KNOWS THE SCIENCE.
So that tells you right there...HE DOESN'T. Gov. Brown is a wild card for sure, but I think when push comes to shove, he'll sign off. I hope I have to utter another mea culpa with some of this, but thus far, I've not been proven wrong re the political corruption exhibited by our 'esteemed' legislators.
There's a push to move our Governor to have a chat with Dr. Toni Bark re 277, etc. I plan on calling the number provided to voice my concerns to Brown's staff. It's been said by folks that have already called in that 'they're' listening and will forward the message re Dr. Toni Bark to the Governor.
Dr. Bark would be an AWESOME channel in which to educate the Governor about the multiple levels of issues with this bill, that's for sure. But whether he'll be convinced enough to actually meet with her -- I don't know.
Jerry Brown
Phone: (916)445-2841
Fax: (916)558-3160
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 26, 2015 at 01:50 PM
Thanks for that info, Jeannette. Unfortunately, I do believe this bill will be 'rubber stamped' and sent expeditiously to Brown's desk; I do believe he'll sign off.
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 26, 2015 at 12:57 PM
@Jenny
You took the words right out of my mouth. What is needed now is a supreme court ruling guaranteeing a philosophical exemption to vaccines and any other medical procedures in all 50 states.
Posted by: 4Bobby | June 26, 2015 at 12:56 PM
All I can say is "Holy crap!" From a researcher with impeccable credentials. Watch to the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT25HhAVhhU
Posted by: Carol | June 26, 2015 at 12:31 PM
@Bayareamom, thanks. I did manage to find this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html
"If a bill is amended in the second house, it must go back to the house of origin for concurrence, which is agreement on the amendments. If agreement cannot be reached, the bill is referred to a two house conference committee to resolve differences. Three members of the committee are from the Senate and three are from the Assembly. If a compromise is reached, the bill is returned to both houses for a vote."
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 26, 2015 at 12:01 PM
Meanwhile, the highest court of the land just voted against discrimination in a landmark decision. From the first page of on MSN.com :
"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of the court, said that the hope of gay people intending to marry "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Kennedy, a conservative who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices."
How ironic that yet in California, by passing SB277, they will be condemning some to live in lives excluded from one of the world's other oldest institutions, public education. Medical freedom activists also ask for equal dignity under the law. The Constitution should have to grant this.
Posted by: Jenny | June 26, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Looks like maybe about 12 reps maybe of Spanish/minority-in- America heritage. Maybe we should have focused on them - they've basically just sold their fellow minority's children out. If they would have had their eyes open, It could have gone the other way and been 34 ayes, 42 nayes. Are they the "patsies" the republicans were counting on?
Now the Republicans can swoop in on the next election and say "look, your own people are selling you out, making bad invasive, corrupt decisions that will affect your own blood and the blood of all your decendents. Let us rescue you. The Democrats no longer are no longer your advocates. Vote for us and we will change this." And, knowing that the Republican party is all about international corporations and patented everythings, will they really "correct" this horrendous bill?
All it would take for a tie would have been 8 more, or thereabouts. So very sad.
Yet, it also says that at least 39% of California's people in power are now questioning pharmaceutical mandates. It's not as high as the general public's belief in labeling and informed consent and medical freedom, but it's nothing to shirk at, either. Its not some "overwhelming majority" and should give the governor pause to seriously consider a veto.
He would literally be endorsing something that, hypothetically, 39% of the population and states reps are against for VERY significant, ethical, moral, constitutional, international civil rights implications.
Posted by: Jenny | June 26, 2015 at 08:34 AM
But, look at what joy and extreme happiness SB 277 has brought to a few people of questionable moral character!:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/california-vaccines-religious-and-personal-exemptions.html?_r=0
Interesting how the NY Times prefers to showcase a handful of happy, industry-funded lobbyists, rather than shine the spotlight on the huge crowd of parent protestors. Makes one question who owns and tightly controls what the NYT prints, doesn't it?
Posted by: A Person Whose Moral Standards Are Apparently Too High | June 26, 2015 at 07:53 AM
It is all about FEAR. Fear of exposure, fear of job loss, fear of what would happen if the corruption in the CDC is proven in court, fear of a breakdown in trust, fear of legal consequences, fear of a very real possibility of an economic backlash if corruption is proven. World order depends on trusting your governments and your medical establishment.
Posted by: patricia | June 26, 2015 at 05:43 AM
What a terrible, biased NYT article.
Posted by: Twyla | June 26, 2015 at 04:50 AM
It is time to wave the swastika's in their faces !
For that is what this is !
Anger !
Posted by: Sophie Scholl | June 26, 2015 at 03:06 AM
RECOMMENDED:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_4lp076g3g
SB277 CA Assembly Floor Vote - June 25 2015
Posted by: reader | June 26, 2015 at 02:31 AM
@Jeanette Bishop:
Essentially, when this bill goes back to the Senate, it's more or less to rubber stamp the entirety of the bill vis-a-vis the new amendments. Of course, there may be a slim chance it won't pass, but the writing's on the wall.
It remains to be seen what Governor Brown will do. In my own humble opinion, I feel he'll sign off. But I've been reading various comments and some have opined that Brown's known to turn against his political party at times, so perhaps this will be one of those times.
I really doubt that, though.
Interestingly enough, my husband told me this morning that the Church of Scientology did not actually come out AGAINST this bill. They remain neutral on this issue. So that posed a real 'huh' moment for us and we started wondering what that could mean.
My hunch is that this group, politically powerful as it is, has close ties to someone in the industry and doesn't want to push certain buttons. There are strange alliances out there. I must admit that finding this out surprised me enormously because I know how vociferous the COS has been with mental health issues and Big Pharma. They've come out swinging on that subject. I spoke to them years ago about the vaccine issue and at one point, they wanted me to try to get to Sacramento w/o any heads up whatsoever in order to testify before some sort of committee, but I simply couldn't get away (I was homeschooling our son at the time).
Perhaps the silver lining with any of this is the fact that this bill is stirring the embers so much. People are REALLY AWAKENING out there, which is wonderful to see after all these years.
Today's rally was powerful and moving. Laura Hayes did an absolutely superb job with her speech and the Nation of Islam's representative was equally so (it was really something to hear).
The representative from the NOI stated there will be more Town Hall meetings on this subject and I have no doubt he means what he says. This movement against medical tyranny is swelling in numbers.
Ironically enough, I see some hope with all of this for the first time in almost twenty years.
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 25, 2015 at 10:12 PM
Such a contrast between what happened with the maine bills and california.
An orchestration of corruption. Disallowing so much testimony.
Lobbyists on the floor telling pan how to proceed. Unforgettable.
Money money money.
How much did pharma donate to gov brown.
Guess we will find out soon.
Posted by: greyone | June 25, 2015 at 09:30 PM
Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants, DeMeo et al., 2015
"Objective: To compare the incidence of sepsis evaluations, need for increased respiratory support, intubation, seizures, and death among immunized ELBW infants in the 3 days before and after immunization.
This study investigated the incidence of adverse events after routine immunization in extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants.
We analyzed a large multicenter cohort of 13 926 ELBW infants born at 28 weeks’ gestation or less.
Infants had a higher incidence of sepsis evaluations (adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 3.7; 95% CI, 3.2-4.4), need for increased respiratory support (ARR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.9-2.5), and intubation (ARR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2) in the 3 days after immunization relative to the 3 days before immunization.
There were 5 deaths in the postimmunization period. Three of the 5 infants who died in the 3 days after immunization had a diagnosis associated with death available in the data set; 1 infant had a bowel perforation, 1 infant had necrotizing enterocolitis and presumed sepsis, and 1 infant had pneumonia and respiratory failure."
http://saigaiin.sakura.ne.jp/sblo_files/saigaiin/image/JAMA20Network20_20JAMA20Pediatrics20_20Adverse20Events20After20Routine20Immunization20o.pdf
I didn't see information about pre-immunization death rate.
Posted by: Carol | June 25, 2015 at 07:37 PM
I am so disgusted that this passed today. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that this would be happening in the "land of the free." What a travesty!
Posted by: AnneJ | June 25, 2015 at 06:23 PM
Thanks, Anne. I wonder a little at the NY Times mentioning the Holocaust quote. It might make some ask what is it about vaccination that would bring even an anti-vaccine crazy nutter to use the word, and I wonder how many outside of internet trolldom would dismiss RFK Jr. that extremely.
Does anyone in California understand what the next Senate vote actually means, on the chance some CA senators are rethinking their support of the bill? If the bill with amendments is voted against (which I understand doesn't typically happen), does that end the bill or does the vote only apply to the amendments?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 25, 2015 at 06:09 PM