This is what Donnelly said on the Referendum Facebook page: he is committed to pursuing ALL viable courses of action to defeat SB 277, talk to Californians, get their signature, get it on the ballot, recall the legislators responsible, and he hopes that the lawyers will pursue appropriate courses of legal action. I think we should support him and his efforts, he has a plan which is already catching fire!

"SB277 Referendum

July 4 at 9:23am ·
.

‪#‎SB277‬ - Irony... there are people are visiting this page, telling us to do recalls and people are going to the recalls page and telling us to do a referendum. We are working together on both! The websites are: www.SB277Referendum.com and www.SB277Recalls.com We are completely committed to pursuing every avenue available to us, when it is available to us, to get rid of law makers who voted for this and to get rid of the bill itself. You only get one chance to do a referendum and the clock already started ticking on the 90 days. As far as pursuing a lawsuit, we are not attorneys, so we will let the Attorneys focus on what they do best and we will focus on organizing the people. We will alert you to when we can start circulating the official petition here in California - statewide. Thank you for your support! Have a happy and safe Independence Day! God Bless America and especially the great state of California!"

Bayareamom,
We'll see, but I have a feeling that most people don't have a really strong opinion on this. The MOST passionate ones are the antivaxxers or personal choicers, who will flock to the polls. While there ARE a lot of vaccine fans, I'm NOT sure that large numbers of them will flock to the polls. Everyone knows there has been NO crisis, NO children dying because they caught a VPD from an unvaxed classmate. At that early hearing, there were, what? 80 people lining up to express support for SB 277, including Dorit, while there were 800 lining up against it. I'll bet that if there's a campaign to frame it as an issue of personal freedom from government incursion on their children's health and integrity, most people would vote against the bill. I have a feeling that it's pharma hype which makes if appear otherwise.

Bayareamom,
I agree with you and understand the pervasive mindset. I think we need to work hard to remember what sanity is though, what human rights we should have, because they are working hard to make us forget - and that is why, I think, they are getting away with this so far.

Re: the Canary Party poll: No offense, but I think an outside pollster should conduct a statewide poll, just to ensure no bias is included within the poll taking. Sorry to play Devil's Advocate here, but after my tenure as Director and after having spoken to many individuals about this issue, unless there has been some huge paradigm shift in the mindset of the majority on this issue, I don't trust any poll that is conducted by anyone who has a stake in this.

Before some of you take issue with this, turn this around. IF THE OTHER SIDE were to conduct THEIR OWN POLL and come up with numbers that they say reflect THEIR side, would you trust it?

I don't. My gut tells me this isn't an issue that has been thoroughly vetted. Before you put this issue to the ballot, you'd better make sure YOU. HAVE. YOUR. BASE.

And I don't think it's there. Not by a long shot.

"...we may lose the vote, but why should we give up without trying?..."

Putting this issue on the ballot will NOT be an 'education' for most, if at all. Education needs to come PRIOR to a vote, not after!

If you want/need that base to give you a majority vote, then by God you'd better make sure you HAVE your base BEFORE the vote takes place. Or you're cooked.

JMO, but I do agree with Mary Holland in that our whistleblower situation (if you can call him that), is one of our best bets. We may or may not be able to 'save' California now that this horrid bill's been signed, but between William Thompson's Congressional testimony (if we ever get to that point) and this NOI march come October...those two things may be our best hope.

@Twyla:

I admire your positive attitude re the possibility of Californians fanning all around the state re educating the masses, but REALISTICALLY, that's not going to happen, at least not on the level that would make an appreciable difference.

A million man march in Atlanta...that's another story. That will have impact, not just for Californians, but impact on a national level.

I was THRILLED when I viewed the livestream Emergency Town Hall meeting. I haven't felt that inspired for a very long time, until I watched that. Listening to the speakers left virtually an imprint on my soul/heart I will never forget.

WE NEED MORE SUCH MEETINGS. Brother Tony - truly an inspiring speaker, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED should this issue progress into a MOVEMENT.

@Linda1:

You stated, "I think it is important to remember that our laws are supposed to protect the minority from the majority, and not always enact from majority rule."

Let's start here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html

"...Until otherwise informed by the highest court of Massachusetts, we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated 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. No such case is here presented. It is the case of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation adopted in execution of its provisions for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease."

The rules and definitions of someone who may be deemed 'unfit' for vaccination versus someone who IS FIT for vaccination, fall under the decree of the medical trade unions/medical mafia. The language defining the meaning of UNFIT, today, is SO restrictive, as to render it almost impossible to PROVE one is unfit. They restricted the Table in our so-called vaccine court so as to render it almost impossible to prove a case of vaccine injury.

I'M ON YOUR SIDE. But your statement is nothing more than wishful thinking for the truth of the matter is, the MINORITY ARE NOT protected by these laws. It's quite the contrary...

Getting back to the Referendum issue:

Simply put, just because we have a number of options within which to try to repeal this new law doesn't necessarily mean we should USE all of those options (for various reasons).

Having enough signatures to carry through with this Referendum does NOT EQUAL having a majority vote on that ballot. There is a difference between SIGNATURES and VOTES.

This vaccine issue is all most of us think about on a 24/7 basis. We eat, sleep and drink this issue. But this doesn't mean that this is the case for MOST people. For MOST, this issue is barely a blip on the radar screen. I've witnessed this repeatedly throughout my years of activism and I know many of you have as well.

OR, if this IS an issue on some people's minds, it's an issue that is decidedly mainstream, i.e., all vaccines are good, they harm no one, it's all benefit and very little risk, if any. THAT is the MAJORITY OPINION out there, like it or not.

I hate that as much as any of you; it drives me insane. But that is the mentality that is out there; this is the majority mindset.

All I am saying is that instead of any sort of knee jerk reaction to this issue, do the leg work/homework required PRIOR to putting this thing to a vote.

To the National Health Federation: Hire a pollster to take a poll throughout the state. You'll get probably at best, a ball park figure/percentage, but it will at least give you somewhat of an idea as to how Californians are going to vote on this issue BEFORE you actually put this thing on the ballot.

Just getting pissed off and deciding to do SOMETHING, just to make yourselves feel as though you're doing something productive, may come to bite you in the arse instead.

Because I'm telling you: SHOULD this issue get on the ballot and that vote goes the other way - that will SEAL THE DEAL. The People of California will have SPOKEN and no Judge, jury/courtroom is going to go AGAINST the people should this happen.

You can't bitch on the one hand that this law was put into place AGAINST THE PEOPLE'S WISHES and then cast a vote and when that vote DOES COME IN, then say the people had no say.

THINK before you do this. NO lawsuit is going to save California should this thing go to vote and the people vote FOR the enforcement of this new law.

To clarify:

I am NOT speaking about SIGNATURES. I am speaking about VOTES once it reaches the ballot!!

I've never felt acquiring signatures would be an issue. I do believe that's doable. What I am most concerned with is that should this come up for vote, we will NOT have the majority swing in our favor! I am most concerned, because of prior work as Director, that Californians will vote FOR the enactment of this new law.

This is a very legitimate concern.

I have a rather unique perspective regarding this issue given my past work (for a brief time) as the National Vaccine Information Center Director for CA. I worked as Director for 2010/2011 period. During that time, I worked on issues regarding AB499.

I literally wrote via email to every single school, in every district, in California. During that time, I spoke with MANY individuals in our state regarding parental rights re the legal right to the use of our exemptions. I spoke (and worked indirectly with) our California Public Health Department during this process. I spoke with state health department physicians (including 3 pediatricians), nurses, Principals, Superintendents, teachers, school nurses and parents.

When speaking with all these individuals, I came away with a general backdrop as to what the majority of Californians feel about vaccines, the use of mandates (including coercion to get parents to vaccinate), and parental rights.

What I found is that MOST all the individuals I contacted were not only PRO vaccine, and most of them, sad to say, because of their lack of knowledge about vaccines in general, were so inclined as to disregard parental rights on this issue.

This sentiment was conveyed to me repeatedly as I found myself speaking and writing to these individuals, i.e., from physicians and nurses with the state health department, to nurses within our school districts, to school board members, school district nurses, etc.

SOME of these individuals were willing to listen to me relay the pro choice, pro informed consent ethic regarding this issue and would listen politely as I told them my story about our son's vaccine reactions. But ultimately, what I discovered when working as the Director was that most individuals in this state are PRO vaccine and yes, even if this means forcing parents into vaccinating their kids in order to attend school.

Believe me, there were medical trade unions in CA that were not too pleased with my efforts (seeing my name plastered all over one of their websites was NOT a pleasant thing). But that also served as a warning as to just how determined these unions are in this state when forcing the issue of mandates on its citizens. They'll stop at NOTHING to get their way.

FEAR of disease RULES the day for most individuals who are pro vaccine and like it or not, I found it was a huge uphill battle to even TRY to get some of these folks to do their due diligence on this issue.

...there are HUNDREDS of bills out there, having nothing to do with vaccines or parental rights. Any of you familiar with any of them? The answer is probably not. So what makes any of us think that MOST of our voters are even aware of this new law (much less its surrounding issues).

I'm assuming the National Health Federation is behind this Referendum. I'm wondering if they've performed an informal poll which might give a glimmer as to how this vote may swing should it get on the ballot. My hunch is that this has not yet been done.

There are more than a few of us who have some major concerns with this Referendum issue and some of those concerns stem around potential legal issues should this vote end up going against us.

I (and several others) are concerned with the potential consequences SHOULD this make it on a ballot and a majority votes leans FOR enactment/enforcement of this new law. There is a very real chance this will not go our way. What will be the legal issues for all of us should this happen? Anyone? I'm open to hearing from Mary Holland (of whom I've written) or to any other attorney out there who has stated on the record that there WILL be lawsuits filed on our behalf should 277 pass.

Question: SHOULD Californians have the opportunity to vote on this issue and should they vote FOR enforcement of this new law, WHAT THEN? That's our question...

@bayareamom we may lose the vote, but why should we give up without trying? Win or lose, collecting signatures and having the issue on the ballot are two more points of contact to educate people. The marketing rule of thumb is that it takes 7 contacts to turn someone into a customer. So we need as many opportunities as we can get.

There are some studies showing that the more vaccines are raised as an issue, the more concerned people are about them, even when it is presented as "vaccines are the best thing since sliced bread". So all the money that will be spent by pharma to sway the vote is likely going to hurt them in the end.

So 350,000 signatures. As someone said, going to the older people and educating them will be important. I'm confused though, isn't a referendum a vote put to the people? Why 350,000 signatures?

You know what? The federal government makes money from vaccine sales. You know that. What makes California different from Texas, Oregon, Washington, and all the other states that didn't go for vaccine exemption changes. Well, California has the most people of the states, I think. But that isn't what I was thinking of. California is a financial mess, right? So, what if, Brown and the rest of them were offered a deal they couldn't refuse? I mean a cut of the business the way the federal government gets a cut. Not far fetched. That would explain a lot of the unbelievable behavior we have been witnessing.

Here's the Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/SB277Referendum

I have been thinking back as I read this. I have one autoimmune disorder, and symptoms of another. I was a minimally vaxed child (last booster 1974, except tetanus shot when I ran over rust barbed wire fence barefoot). Had symptoms of my diagnosed autoimmune disorder in early 70s, too, unmistakable by mid-80s. Developed my joint problems by late 80s (mostly ignored, along with symptoms of my autoimmune disease), and enlisted in military in 1990. Was wondering if all those shots might have had to do with whatever caused joint issues, but they,too, were earlier. Can't blame pharma...

Immunocompromised woman dies after being exposed to measles nine weeks earlier, and measles virus is discovered on autopsy.
Cause of death? "Measles".

Toddler with mitochondria deficiency develops a measles rash after MMR vaccination and four weeks later fits and dies. Measles vaccine virus is found in her liver, muscle tissue, and cerebral spinal fluid.
Cause of death? "Liver failure".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=mOnukyFrHuM

@ Danchi

"Next: the Washington State Health Dept. is required to do a PCR test to determine the genotype and the strain: vaccine or wild. If it is determine that the young lady became infected by the vaccine strain, will the public be told? "

Good question seeing as in an immunocompromised child the presence of the measles vaccine virus on autopsy is not considered to be the cause of death.

the beginning of this reads like a bad abbot and costello routine.. you should be ashamed of yourselves

Danchi: I would have all those questions re: a "pneumonia secondary to measles" death. As informed citizen, I also want to know
1. Was the person in a state of vitamin A deficiency?
2. Was the doctor in charge of her case ignorant of the nutritional implications of treating a person with immune suppressing drugs, or was she being nutritionally compensated to make up for being on any such drugs?
3. What was the pneumonia strain? (wild or vaccine strain)
4. Has she been vaccinated for pneumonia, or recently around someone who had been?
5. Did she have a healthy microbiome?

It would be bad advertising right now for the public to find out that pneumonia vaccines might not work well, or that they, too, can shed, wouldn't it?

More on Measles in Washington State:
Everyone needs (IMHO)to respond to articles & facebook posting to insure the FACTS aren't covered up in this particular case because the media is in bliss over this poor young woman dying of pneumonia, not measles. I'm sure someone in the California legislator and other state houses across the country are probably saying "timing couldn't be better".

The premise of the article is how the press turned the woman's death into a media sensation and provided no facts or real information:

"A good reporter, however, would’ve kept digging and eventually may have been able to piece together some sort of newsworthy story. The reporter would have, for example, quickly found out from reading a piece in The Seattle Times that the woman was in her 20s.

The good reporter would have found out from reading the news of Clallam County over the past few months that the previous case—the fifth—of measles in that county involved a man who had been vaccinated against the disease. The other four measles cases in the county in February involved people who had not been vaccinated. These included a 14-year old boy (the fourth case) and his 5-year old sister (the second case) and two men ages 43 (the third case) and 52 (the first case). Two of the individuals involved in the first four cases are apparently related to the man in the fifth case.

According to Clallam health officials, both the fourth and fifth case individuals were quarantined during their infectious period, so they could not have spread the disease.

All five cases occurred at the same time there was so much national commotion over the outbreak of measles at Disneyland… which explains why the Clallam County Health and Human Services officials started issuing public health advisories urging people to get free shots of the measles vaccine (MMR) at local clinics.

It’s possible that the 20-some year old woman (the sixth case) caught the measles virus from one of the other five people (although we know that at least two of those individuals had been quarantined). But it is also possible that the woman, who never actually developed measles symptoms, simply responded to local health advisories and drove over to a clinic and got her MMR shot, and that's what the autopsy found was traces of the vaccine strain measles virus in her system. Remember, MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine, and those who get live virus vaccines can be infected with it.

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/07/the-woman-who-died-of-measles-in-washington-how-a-press-release-became-a-media-sensation/

@Sophie Scholl
I was unable to 'navigate' Forbes to find this Emily Willingham article. On reflection, best NOT to give this ghastly woman a 'hit'. Forbes gives kudos for popularity.

Emily Willingham also wrote another Forbes article, a year or two ago, blaming Dr Andrew Wakefield for the lack of research into autism related bowel disease, during the 17 years following the much maligned 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet paper.

Since Dr Wakefield didn't ask to get hounded out of his research job and his country, dragged before a 3 year inquisition style GMC 'kangaroo court' with 2 clinician colleagues, and stripped of his licence to practice medicine, the blame surely lies with those political, medical and corporate interests who engineered this horrendous miscarriage of justice. (Colleague Professor Walker-Smith appealed the GMC decision and the UK High Court reinstated his medical licence. The Judge, Lord Justice Mitting was scathing about the GMC's (quote) 'inadequate and superficial' examining of the evidence against the 3 doctors; their conclusions in many cases stated to be just plain WRONG!!)

Yes Emily Willingham take note of those words, from an English High Court Judge. 'Inadequate' 'Superficial' and 'WRONG WRONG WRONG', and reflect upon how Dr Wakefield and his 12 multidisciplinary team colleagues observed, studied and concluded there WAS a link between autism and bowel disease, a link which mainstream medicine now acknowledges.

Dr Wakefield literally BEGGED for more research into possible vaccine links. It has NEVER been done. Skewed statistical analyses, linked to corrupt theft of research cash and money laundering, this is the REAL fraud.

You should be ashamed Emily Willingham.

Dont you just hate Forbes & Emily WillingHam (what an idiot)

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/fhej45fljl/7-cyrus-poonwalla-chairm/

The 7 most influential vaccine heros !
Maurice "bargain basement & Aids & Cancer" Hilleman makes it in the list - has she not heard the recording about the tumours ?

The woman was recently vaccinated, and, conveniently, it wasn't close enough that the vaccine could have sent her over the cliff in any way and yet it was not in time enough to prevent measles??? Oh please these people couldn't keep their story straight or spin their propaganda enough to convince anyone. I'm sorry but it's just not all our jobs to protect the immunosuppressed, as even one mother whose child had cancer even stated herself. She literally said "don't vaccinate on my child's account."

HeidiN

Article published Jul 2, 2015
UPDATE: Clallam County woman's death by measles is first in nation in 12 years and first in state since 1990. Woman was Vaccinated.
By Rob Ollikainen
Peninsula Daily News:http://peninsuladailynews.com/

PORT ANGELES — A Clallam County woman who died of measles in the spring was the first confirmed measles death in the U.S. since 2003 and the first in Washington state since 1990.

The state Department of Health officials announced the death Thursday.

“Our deepest sympathy goes out to the family,” said Iva Burks, Clallam County health and human services director.

The woman, who was not identified, was likely exposed to measles at Olympic Medical Center during a winter outbreak in Clallam County, health officials said.

She was at the medical facility at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was contagious for measles, state Health spokesman Donn Moyer said.

“She had an underlying disorder, an autoimmune disorder, and she was taking a number of different drugs to modulate the immune system,” said Dr. Jeanette Stehr-Green, interim Clallam County health officer, in a Thursday interview.

“Some of those medications would prevent her from mounting a good response to any infection.”

The woman was transferred to the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle, where she died.

She did not exhibit common symptoms of measles like a rash, so the infection wasn't discovered until after her death.

An autopsy concluded the cause of death was pneumonia due to measles.

Although health officials are withholding the woman's age, hometown and date of death, Stehr-Green did say the woman was a young adult who had been vaccinated for measles earlier in life.

The woman did not become immune, however, because of her medical condition.

A couple of comments from me: This is not the entire article. You can go to the website and read the remainder at your leisure. The last comment beginning:
"The woman did not become immune ...." It would seem since there is such a focus on protecting the immunocompromised wouldn't you think that her personal physician would have been more diligent in her care and performed a titer test to determine if her vaccines "took"? My interpretation of this is her Doctors assumed since she had been vaccinated as a child, she should have been immune so they didn't bother to check. When her autopsy showed she was indeed infected with measles they were faced with a decision: since she didn't show any outward signs of measles aka asymptomatic do they tell the public that people can have measles and show no outwardly signs, especially since it has been going viral on the internet that the measles vaccines not only sheds but people who have been recently injected with the MMR can be contagious and asymptomatic. Not a chance.

Next: the Washington State Health Dept. is required to do a PCR test to determine the genotype and the strain: vaccine or wild. If it is determine that the young lady became infected by the vaccine strain, will the public be told? If they report it to the pubic will the Health Dept say the woman became infected because she was immunocompromised therefore reinforcing the propaganda of the CDC that the community must be vaccinated to protect the immunocompromised or will they just say her vaccine wore off?

I'm sure the Washington State Health Dept and the CDC are already in spin mode.

I think its not about profit but human greed. Pharma made profit 40 years ago simply,human greed has led them down the path to hell its well documented.

Hell ain`t hot enough for them,nothing to eat in hell but cash for those who wanted it sooo much ,enjoy!.

MMR RIP

@ann what a great idea! Door to door with movie night!
As for greater good: whoever said that the greater good means the identical approach for all? The greater good for our communities is to stop more cases of brain injury for those who are suscrptible, to respect parental rights, to find justice and the truth, and to keep us all safer. We need to challenge anyone who buys into the ridiculous assumption that the greater good is injecting poison into a generation of infants with the purported goal to reduce "harm".

Travel is mentioned in The National Vaccine Plan.

It is also true that giving vaccines in drug stores makes it harder to track the effects of cumulative vaccines .

"...The unvaccinated are not a threat to anyone or anything but corporate profits.

Open your eyes and see and your ears and hear:

Marvelous health does not come from needles and vials of toxic man made and GMO biologics. Nor does it come from colorful pills filled with synthetic compounds which are expensive substitutes for nature's medicines and preventives. Afterall things that occur in nature cannot be patented and thus profited from; hence the inferior substitutes created by industry.

Nature gives freely and with great abundance to anyone and everyone who takes time to observe her patterns, learn her wisdom and respect her gifts.

Unplug from the matrix of modern, synthetic medicine and thrive!"

LOVED this comment!

Jeanette, that is frightening yet totally believable that more departments such as Transportation (and whatever corporations that own those) are involved and travel will be restricted. I won't be visiting if that's the case!

Dr. Bark in two of the SB277 rallies held Friday mentioned that the Department of Transportation is involved in crafting much of the exemption restricting legislation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekFxUPOWNDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3019x59JCWI

To me there's an indication that this is not just pharma or the "healthcare" lobby driving this mandate push (though there may be little point in drawing lines between corporations and our government nowadays).

Doesn't that seem to also suggest that it's pretty likely that travel is going to be restricted by or used to promote vaccine uptake?

Maybe something like having drivers licenses or passports conditional upon vaccine compliance? I just noticed how much of the new legislation has been introduced in states with coastlines. Will states with stricter vaccine laws be requiring compliance with their vaccine schedules (or with vaccines for whatever the current infectious disease emergency is ongoing) for travelers to visit or pass through?

One of the things that the vaccine faithful/compliant need to understand is how much the schedule has increased over the past thirty years, and how many vaccines are currently in development. Maybe our friends think today's schedule is ok, but what about when ten more vaccines are added? For diseases that are very rare, or rarely harmful, or not communicable by casual contact? What about mandates for adults when we are not facing epidemics of serious diseases? The door is open to the mandating of more and more vaccines. As rfk jr has described so well parent/consumer choice is the last remaining check in a system without liability, independent govt oversight, or free market

Let's not assume that only unvaccinated people are capable of being infectious. We know that's not true.

From my own experience I know that my daughter caught the flu from a flu-vaccinated friend. I know this because her mom told me that her kid had flu type b and my kid had been exposed. Sure enough, my kid was sick as a dog a few days later.

I think the only option now is to go directly to court and start challenging these vaccines. Unfortunately, it likely have to be done one by one. For each and every vaccines on the schedule, there is an argument for and against. For each and every vaccine, the argument for mandating is extremely weak. They tried to force the members of the military to take the anthrax vaccine after 9/11. The members of the military challenged the mandate in court and won. They were able to show that the data did not support this mandate, either from a safety or efficacy perspective. This needs to now be taken out of the court of public opinion, where big Pharma's voice is and alwsys will be the richest and the loudest, and taken into a real court, where real evidence, not emotions, can be presented.

There is only one reason why pharma want every kid to be vaccinated because then it becomes impossible to compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes. My four unvaccinated grandchildren are observably amongst the healthiest kids in their school classes. Furthermore not one of those unvaccinated kids will be autistic, ever. I do not believe that there is any such child as an unvaccinated autistic child nor have I ever heard of one, nor have I ever had a sensible reply to my questions about where they are.

Tony Bateson, Oxford UK