Independence Day 2015
Autism Sibling: Living With Acceptable Loss

A Conversation About SB277: It’s Not About the Vaccines

Goodbye CABy Cathy Jameson

“So, California?  What do you think about what just happened there?” a friend asked me midweek last week. 

“California?  With SB277?  Oh, we’re screwed,” I replied matter-of-factly. 

Not expecting that response, my friend’s eyes widened.  I continued, “If you think that what happened in California doesn’t affect you, oh, boy.  I hate to be the one to tell you that your freedom just got trampled on.” 

I waited for her reply.  

“Now I know your stance on vaccines, Cathy, but I have to say that all the unvaccinated kids they’ve been letting into school are a danger…” she started. 

Now I was the one who was stunned.

She continued, “…and that law would protect my child.  Yes, he’s vaccinated, but he’s sick all the time.  Those unvaccinated kids bring disease and…”

“Wait.  Your son is vaccinated.  But he’s sick all the time?”  I paused then added, “Maybe it’s not the other kids getting him sick.  Have you thought that maybe it’s the vaccines making him sick?”

Not giving her too much time to let that sink in, I said, “You know that vaccines come with risks and that they don’t guarantee immunity, right?  You know that they also may add a burden to his immune system.  Instead of boost it, it’s having to work harder.  Maybe his immune system isn’t working so well because of the vaccines.”

My friend looked at me and then at Ronan and said, “But the immunocompromised kids need the other kids to be vaccinated to prot—…”

“Ronan’s immunocompromised because of the vaccines,” I stated.  “That argument doesn’t work.  And I would never tell another parent to vaccinate their child to protect my child.” 

Before she could say anything, I said, “By agreeing that this law is a good thing for your child because you think it will somehow protect your child, you forget that for other children, like mine, it will only add risk.  I’ve studied those risks.  I understand those risks now but only after watching my child’s health decline.  I can’t ignore those risks, and I will not let what happened to Ronan happen to any of my other children.  To say that you’re hoping that your kid will stop being sick when other kids are vaccinated and to completely ignore those risks, well, you can’t ask me to set my child on fire hoping that it will protect your child.”

“But if vaccines help the greater good…” she began.  I couldn’t let her finish.

“It sounds like you are only listening to what the media is telling you—that disease is bad and that vaccines are the answer, and that SB277 will ‘protect the children.’  It won’t protect a lot of children.  Nor will it help a parent who’s fought like hell to retain their parental rights. 

You know that that bill stripped a parent’s right to choose to vaccinate or not.  That decision should be a private one, one made by a parent with their doctor if they so choose it.  To vaccinate a child is not the people’s decision to make.  It’s not the politician’s decision to make either.  To use a child’s vaccine status to grant or to deny access to an education, like SB277 will, should never have been on the table for discussion.  But that just happened.  Kids whose parents prefer a slower vaccine schedule or no vaccine schedule are being left with little or no choice.  You missed the boat if you think that the bill was only about vaccines.  This bill took away a parents’ choice.”   

“I understand that, but…” my friend began.

“No.  I have to interrupt you,” I uttered.  “You don’t understand.  That law…it’s so frustrating.  And truly frightening unless you are okay letting someone else tell you what’s best for your child,”

“I know how you feel about vaccines, but I’m okay with them,” my friend declared.

“And that’s fine.  That’s your choice.  And I respect that we have differing views,” I answered.  “But for parents in California, SB277 took that choice away.  That’s where the problem is—losing the freedom to choose. 

There is another problem, too.  You are hearing that somehow kids will be less sick by demanding vaccines for school entry.  You can’t really believe that all of a sudden that kids will be healthy and less susceptible to disease.  You can’t believe that that will extend into the community either.  You run into unvaccinated children and adults all over the place in town.  At the pool, the library, the grocery store.  Do you know if they are fully vaccinated?  What are you going to do, ask to see their shot record to find out before you go near them?  That’s absurd.” 

“No, but…but…” she attempted to respond. 

“If you don’t see that other’s rights—and your rights, too, are in jeopardy than you’ve missed entirely what this legislation did.  Not only did it strip the rights of hundreds of thousands of parents in California, it opened the door for other states, like ours, to follow suit.  You may be okay with other people telling you what you need to do for your child, but I’m not okay with it. 

I won’t stand here and wait to see what happens next because what will happen next scares me.  This could get worse too, so I’m going to keep up with the news that’s coming out of California.  I’m going to pray that the people come together to defend their rights, to protect their children, and to remind their representatives that taking rights away is not acceptable.  I hope you will too.”

“Well, I can see your point,” my friend stammered.

“It’s not just my point.  It’s necessary,” I expressed.


That conversation was a culmination of conversations that I have had with friends recently and included one that happened in my kitchen just a few days ago.  After that last one, it is more apparent that Average America has no idea what implications SB277 has for the rest of the country.  We have got to wake up Average America! 

As I see it, people still do have a few choices before SB277 goes into effect in 2016.  Here are just a few of those ideas.  If you have other pro-active advice to share, please add them to the comments below.  Local rallies, coordinating events with local support groups, let us know where they are and how the public can support those efforts:

-          Sit back and let the government make choices for you.

-          Stand up and voice your opinion:  take the online polls about forced vaccinations and losing parent rights; sign petitions; call and send letters to your representatives; repeal this law; recall the representatives;  who stood behind it; and help support the referendum introduced by former Assemblyman Tim Connelly.

-          Join the social media efforts of those groups defending health freedom  and let your voice be heard.  Even if it shakes, let your voice be heard.

Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.


cia parker

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: and 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!"

cia parker

Donnelly is making plans for how to recruit many thousands of Californians and train them to talk to people about the bill, and get their signatures. Starting July 15, when the permission goes through. I think that's the best way to defeat this bill, to get out and talk one-on-one with hundreds of thousands of Californians, share stories, concerns, and facts. I can't think of any other way to do it. Only people already convinced are going to march, and the unconvinced may look at them on the TV reports for a couple of minutes, and remain unmoved because they have not been involved as individual human beings.

cia parker

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.

Jeannette Bishop


There was a suggestion that another referendum effort was in the works by people who were expected to sabotage it in the end diverting & wasting the resources and energy of sincere supporters. I think--I am trusting people I don't know, but I have been trying to keep up online and get a feel for where people are coming from--doing it now (on the part of those like Tim Donnelly) is motivated at least in part to prevent a sure failure from somewhere else and possibly to combine/coordinate resources with the recalls (but I don't speak for anyone running anything).

I don't know that we can keep up what will essentially be a campaign either much beyond about November 2016 (not that anyone isn't free to not get behind or support whatever actions they see fit and adding that my view is colored heavily by my own little dithering exhaustion meter)...and another big question (in my mind anyway), if the law was essentially allowed to go into effect for some period of time before a referendum effort, would global trade initiatives like the TPP (rumored to allow corporations to sue states taking actions that reduce their expected profits) possibly make it even harder to throw out?


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.


One more comment:

Question: Where was this poll undertaken? Throughout the entire state (because that's who is going to vote once it's on the ballot)?

I wasn't approached to take this poll. I didn't know anything about it. Were any of my neighbors here in the East Bay Area polled? Anyone in Orange County? (These are notoriously conservative, pro mainstream areas.)


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.


@Jeannette Bishop:

I just read your comment.

I'm not sure you understand just who is backing this referendum (it's not the powers that be).

Tim Donnelly, a former California Assemblyman (who was adamantly opposed to SB277), is behind this push for a referendum; The National Health Federation is also behind the push for a referendum.

Although a referendum is certainly an option, there are grave concerns on the part of many who do not view it as a viable option (not at this juncture at any rate).

Please understand: SHOULD this issue be placed on a ballot and the majority vote SWINGS IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING THIS NEW LAW, the ability for Californians who were against 277 to repeal this law, will be slim at best.


"...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.


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.

Jeannette Bishop

I'm personally not so sure TPTB are confident enough to put SB 277 to a public vote.

They set up four committee hearings in the senate before they saw the opposition. They cancelled one (for some reason this bill will have no fiscal impact?). They annoyed a lot of people and maybe woke up quite a few with demonstrations of lobbying and maneuvering right in the hearing chambers, inaccessible "representatives," and extremely restrictive dictates about how one may express ones position regarding the bill after traveling hours and standing in line for hours to speak. Then the bill was assigned to only one committee in the Assembly before a floor vote, over protests from some members, and Gov. Brown signed the bill the morning after the senate (with less votes the second time) sent it on to him.

I'm not confident that TPTB will even let a valid number of signatures be counted, but I think keeping the issue alive and increasing in discussion is important wherever possible. In areas where recalls won't happen (our representatives voted against the bill), I'm not sure how to do that without some action like a referendum (recalling Gov. Brown might resonate out here, but as I don't see much online discussion, I'm assuming that looks like much to take on?) to consider and promote in the process.



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:

"...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.


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.


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...


There is something called balance of powers. There's the executive branch, the legislatures, and the courts. They are supposed to be independent. Courts can strike down laws which are illegal/unconstitutional, even if popular. So how would a lost referendum affect court cases? I'm not arguing, just asking - I would like to understand this better as I keep hearing it.

I agree that most people are not even aware of this new law. And, if they are aware of it, they don't understand the significance and have only formed opinions based on mainstream news. But that's why maybe it would be a good thing for thousands of people to fan out across California and talk to people about why choices on vaccines are so important. This referendum would provide an excuse for disseminating information and arguments. Maybe publicizing these issues would be a good thing.

Tim Lundeen

@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.

Jeannette Bishop

We have to get 365,880 valid signatures to get the referendum on the 2016 ballot for a vote. There is a strong bias towards dismissing signatures so the goal is to get about 435,000.

I don't think it's impossible to get the signatures--there are probably enough Californians that understand the need for right of determination--though I'm not sure (with how the Six Californias initiative was handled) that we'll get a valid signature count. But I'm also not confident we won't get controlled venues in the courtroom. All we can do IMO is get as many people as possible to consider this question and get more prepared to give informed consent for the 270+ vaccines that may be coming and to respect the right of others to give informed consent (or dissent).

Political and corrupt maneuverings on the part of those in power might only backfire in showing more what they are have for a government, not a democracy, nor the democratic republic we're supposed to have.

@Cia and Bayareamom

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?

Chris Kenton

Sorry to say, we will likely be taking out 2 Cal Pers retirement incomes and taking our 2nd grade daughter out of California when she reaches 7th grade. Very sad, me and her mother were born and raised here, and we LOVE California with all of its pros and cons. But this, will not stand with us.

I saw a man on TV with a doctor robe on speaking about 'anti vaxers' as if we were vermin who were going to shop for another state and that we needed to get a national sb277 to root us out.

They look at us like we are sub-human, unwilling to take a small risk for the betterment of the public and a pharma God. I am not against Vaccines, and we consider them one by one, but I am so sad to say, Good Bye California.


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.


After some contemplating, I'm not so sure this referendum is such a good idea. Hubby and I were speaking about this issue the other week. What I don't think most on our side of the fence realize is that although we may be a loud minority...


What people need to understand is that MOST CA residents would probably (if not already) SUPPORT SB277's passage into law. And that's if they're even AWARE of this new law. Just because WE are all plugged into this vaccine issue, does not mean that MOST...ARE.

We live in San Ramon. I've read the Danville/San Ramon Express re Brown's signature on this new law. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT WAS FOR THIS NEW LAW. "It's time for you non-vaccinators to get your kids vaccinated!" was one of the comments.

I did my usual plugging in of links, etc., gently trying to motivate the commenters to open their eyes/minds to the reality of this new law and what it will eventually mean, but they're completely clueless. I gave them plenty of research materials to peruse if they've a mind. Do I believe for one moment ANY of those commenters will take me up on following through with more research?

NOPE. Maybe one or two will, but we live in a very mainstream thinking area. We have a very high vaccination rate in this district.

We have a sizeable percentage of autistic children in our school district. When our son was still in school and after speaking at one district board meeting, I found myself speaking to a mom who has two children with autism. She explained she had never heard of David Kirby's book and that she was not aware of the thimerosal/mercury issue with vaccines (let alone all the other safety concerns).

I was stunned. I asked her how in the world this could be. She explained that from the first moment her feet hit the floor in the morning, until her head hit the pillow at night, it was all about taking care of her children's needs. She DIDN'T HAVE TIME to read books or do research, she told me. I had a full heart for her as I listened to her speak. I realized how lucky we were as parents that our issues stemmed ONLY around learning disabilities with our son.

This is but one example as to why so many in our community do not have a clue about vaccine issues. And while there is a huge increase in the numbers of parents waking up to the reality of medical tyranny, this does not mean at all that translates into a MAJORITY OF AWAKENED SOULS.

MOST residents in California are FOR MANDATED VACCINATION. So think about that for a minute. Should this referendum actually gain traction and make it onto the ballot come November 2016, how do you think MOST people will vote on this issue?

From what my husband and I have seen/researched, I don't think that vote will swing our way.

Please understand that although we have made tremendous strides in awakening many parents to this issue, we still have a very long way to go re educating the vast majority, and yet that majority will be what's needed on that ballot.

We won't have it. We will NOT have that vote.

I think we need to continue to have these town hall meetings such as the one just recently held in Los Angeles. We need to continue to get the word out there in any way we can so that we are no longer simply the loud minority, but the MAJORITY speaking out against these sort of mandates.

I can rest assure you all that should this new law reach the voters for repeal, WE WILL NOT HAVE THE VOTES NEEDED.

I don't even want to begin to go down the road as to what this vote may do (if it doesn't get repealed) as to any lawsuit presented afterwards. Realistically, say California residents vote to KEEP this new law in place on this ballot initiative. How will then a Judge and a court view this issue when the majority of Californians feel vaccination should be mandated?

I realize we're all pissed as hell that this thing got rammed through in the way that it did. I do believe Tim Donnelly's heart may be in the right place with this referendum issue. But I don't think he's taken enough time to sort out the issues with this referendum. We all tend, I think, to become a bit myopic when it comes to an issue that surrounds our daily lives, but please remember that for MOST individuals, this is NOT an issue they are even aware of, much less an issue they would AGREE on with the rest of us.

I'm not in favor of this referendum, not at this time. I have been following up on this issue on Facebook and have found a couple of individuals who have spoken with attorneys and they came to the same conclusions that my husband and I have (unfortunately).

It's just not the time. Wait until we KNOW we have the majority vote, THEN do this. Or better yet, allow the efforts of the attorneys out there who will be filing lawsuits in the near future. We can't afford any knee jerk reactions at this time...

cia parker

Here's the Facebook page:

cia parker

I just donated on the Facebook page to get enough referendum signatures to defeat SB 277!Anyone living in California should consider joining them to help collect signatures. The page has already gotten 6,000 likes, if they can get 7,000 volunteers who collect only fifty signatures each, that will be enough to get the 360,000 signatures necessary!

Lisa Annis

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...


How many times do I have to tell the mealy mouthed "safe vaccination" crowd? For as long as people believe the lie that they work then we will *never* gain traction. If you want to gain traction with people on this issue tell them we all have around 100 trillion bacteria and viruses in and on us at any one time. Tell them that ever since the rubella and measles vaccines, rates of congenital defects and deafness and encephalitis have not actually fallen. Tell them that the mumps vaccine has not led to a fall in sterility or that the polio vaccine has not led to a fall in paralysis/crippling or the diphtheria/pertussis vaccine has not led to a fall in hospitalisations for respiratory disease. If you don't do this then all the mainstream media have to do is keep up with these epidemic hysterias and the populous will just forget everything we tell them about the danger of vaccines.


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".

@ 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.

Jeannette Bishop

Page 5 of this document is useful in showing how little protection SB 277 will provide the immune compromised in a California classroom:

Also, with vaccines already on the mandated list that have nothing to do with protecting others or preventing transmission, and the open door to add more vaccines, the amendment to allow those currently in the classroom with PBEs to keep using them, one might rightly conclude that the aim is not protection.


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


Dont know how to link it but saw an article in by bill gallo jr dated july 4 2015 -children get wrong vaxes including gardasil to 2yr old. At a "shots for tots". Guess the moral if you vax check everything including proper refrigeration.


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?


I don't know if people believe their children will be healthier and safer, though they believe the immunocompromised people will be safer. From what I was seeing on Facebook this winter, I think people believe non-vaccinators should be punished and/or don't deserve to have their children in school. There is really no way to argue with people who believe that. For the most part, these are very liberal people who somehow believe that forced vaccination manifests these views. I don't get it.

Also, I'm waiting for California to demand proof of vaccination at Disney, etc., since obviously measles didn't hit the schools, but hit the them park.


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.

Theresa 66

If schools in Calif. are anything like here, they will be sadly broke if a lot of children are dis-enrolled due to this un- American law. Loss of jobs; teachers, administration, maintenance, building, ect... They get an set amount for educating our children, more for special education, I'm sure. They will be hurting. If this comes to our state, I will be looking for a night job to keep our kid home. I know its not possible for every family, but may turn the tide. Maybe coop's would work.
Ah, if only every one had M. Bradys' mindset "If You have to be sick, You can't beat the Measles". They really made light of this supposedly deadly killer. It was nothing when I was a kid.

Jenny Allan

@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.


Patients and health care providers can be reassured that vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event. Nevertheless, providers should be prepared to provide immediate medical treatment should it occur

Sophie Scholl

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

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 ?

Mo Green

The issue for me was the ingredients. Having suffered sudden onset of focusing inabilities and extreme distractsbilities after vaccines was always a puzz distractsbilities was always a puzzle. Years later I have traced it to the use.of fluorides used as a delivery system to drop drug into the cells. It was only after I discovered a way of assuring a deep cellular cleansed that I lost all those chemically induced learning inabilities...decades later,


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."


I am curious about the recent measles "outbreak" the media became hysterical over.... Were these vaccinated or vaccinated people who got this virus? Just curious.

Sure wish the medical community would get half as excited about the daily Autism count.



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:

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 just want to comment on the recent report of the one person who died from measles recently, supposedly first death since 2003. Anyhow, how the heck are they blaming measles from getting it from someone else just because they found it in the gut. Several studies have already shown that lots of people carry measles in the gut who have been vaccinated. And then they add that she recently was vaccinated, but supposedly not in enough time. So clueless they are on the research showing that immune compromised individuals can't handle the live vaccines because it lives in them. I have accepted that businesses are in control and will NEVER give up their money for truth. And most others will NEVER believe the truth because they don't want to. Most people don't make decisions based on facts, but instead base their decisions on what they want to be true and go and find false information to support their desired view. Sad, sad, sad.

Angus Files

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!.


Apply the  Nuremberg code

If transportation is doing it could they be trying to get this power in order to collect DNa and use it to identify terrorists? That's how they found Osama bin Laden.
This is a terrible slippery slope.
I think that when liability was removed from vaccines --something some thought would bringg more honestly and hope for victims--instead, the thugs saw a chance to extract enormous profits from the federal govt as well as everyone else. The same mindset that is willing to kill innocents by selling one more gun indiscrimately or sending others to war to die so they can profit from arms has taken over medical decisions and Pharm.. The same mentality that allowed the Michigan dr to make 35 million from Medicaid treating fasely diagnosed "cancer victims" is at work with dr organizations that prescribe unneeded vaccinations and bilk Govt agencies out of hundreds of millions buying useless vaccines. The gig is up.

the  Nuremberg code

@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".

Anne Harris

I have 2 movies on vaccine choice (The Greater Good, and Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal). I'm going to go door to door in my senior community of 550 homes, 1 week at a time and invite 10 people a week to come to my house on Sun nite to see one of these movies and stay for discussion if they want. I ordered 2 other movies, but haven't gotten them yet. Seniors vote! Hopefully at some point I'll have petitions for them to sign about the referendum to overurn SB 277.


Travel is mentioned in The National Vaccine Plan.


“Now I know your stance on vaccines, Cathy, but I have to say that all the unvaccinated kids they’ve been letting into school are a danger…” she started.

“…and that law would protect my child. Yes, he’s vaccinated, but he’s sick all the time. Those unvaccinated kids bring disease and…”

“But if vaccines help the greater good…”

“But the immunocompromised kids need the other kids to be vaccinated to prot—…”

Most of us (here on AoA) recognize exactly where the average person gets ideas like this. They are not original thoughts - they've been spoon fed these ideas by the mainstream media - simply PR talking points! I know well-educated, intelligent people who quote the NY Times, WSJ, LA Times, NPR, etc to make their arguments, believing that these propaganda rags are actually still practicing real journalism. For a long time I couldn't believe they couldn't separate out the truth from the PR, but I've come to the conclusion that there are many people who just CANNOT and WILL NOT see the truth no matter how obvious. I think these people need to believe in the "system" whether its government, schools, hospitals, the AMA, etc. They NEED to trust the powers that be or their whole world will be shattered. They can't handle the fear and uncertainty that would be involved in recognizing and standing up to the lies. It will take a lot of work to break through the walls of fear and denial that most people have constructed.

For Uncle Bud who would have stood with us against toxic shots

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

Jeannette Bishop

We've focused mainly on the violation of right to choose in SB 277 by the removal of PBEs and religious exemptions. I also have concerns about the extent to which this bill empowers a bureaucracy to tells us what we have to do while we're not able to choose. I'm very legally ignorant, so if I'm reading things that are not possible under the law, I certainly wouldn't mind being enlightened.

One in the open door clause:

"(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians."

Does that "taking into consideration..." sound like a suggestion or a preference more than a limiting condition? How binding is that language? Does the wording actually intend "the department" to have power to require a vaccine for ANY DISEASE period (whether or not there are recommendations by the DHHS, AAP, and AAFP to base a new mandate upon which seems pretty broad anyway)?

2) Another concern is the part that says

"(e) The department may specify the immunizing agents that may be utilized and the manner in which immunizations are administered."

I went on about this a lot somewhere else, but with that couldn't the department essentially specify anything from "the vaccine you got is no good...get _whatever number_ of doses of this one also" to what amounts to vaccine trials or research using mandated participants, especially for any new vaccine for an already listed mandated disease, but even for new diseases added to the list where the parents aren't aware of the tenuous PBE option there? (for 12 and up minors can "consent" to treatment for STDs without parental knowledge in California so what might that look like in practice)

I don't want to fall into a trap of focusing on some of the worst inches and letting "them" then take nearly a mile because they back off a little on their initial egregiousness (that's already been done by our "elected" officials)--I personally want every inch of this bill, AB2109, Pan, Brown, dozens of other legislators gone from our government at this point--so I'm not sure if bringing this up accomplishes anything constructive...but it seems like this "law" aims to (on top of all that is focused on) "legalize" what drug companies are used to doing in vaccine trials in third world countries under manipulative (and at least some times illegal) practices.


"...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!

Bob Moffitt

@ visitor & Jeanette

"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?"

Before they get to "travelers" .. they have to complete their first step .. which is to control those employed in various professions .. such as .. anyone who works in a hospital threatened with loss of employment if they don't accept annual flu shot .. teachers and day care workers .. and .. the latest in Chairman De blasio''s New York City .. an effort to require licensed taxicab drivers to be fully vaccinated because they may expose anyone who rides in their taxi if they are not vaccinated.

Hey .. it's YOUR choice ... no vaccination .. no license to drive a taxi cab ..

On and on it goes .. one at a time .. like the proverbial frog in a pot .. that does not realize the temperature in the pot is reaching a boiling point ... until it is too late for the frog to do anything about it


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!


This is so sick and sad and terrifying for the children that will be forced to be vaccinated if parents cannot have some one home school them - that will be our choice here in OC California cause we do not have a CHOICE anymore what we decide to give our children. My one twin as autism and he totally changed after the 1st MMR and both twins never received a vaccine after that one and neither one ever will. We have worked so hard to make progress with him there in no way he will regress and I will not take any chances with his brother. We know it is in our family now.

Jeannette Bishop

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:

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?


Pan won't be liking this conversation on a past volunteer for him who took Tdap and is now affected by Guillain Barre. Luckily he has some good friends who are covering it themselves becauseedoa won't.


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

29 years and 0 Rx drugs

29 years of living across 3 minimally vax'ed kids and zero prescription drugs.

Okay, actually there were 3 antibiotic prescriptions in early babyhood for my first who was vax-injured.

I'll say it again. 29 years, zero prescription drugs. Well visits only except for the occasional round of stitches and urgent care for accidents and sports injuries. And on top of that 0-3 school absences per year per child.

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!


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.


You are brave to have these types of conversations in your kitchen. About a year ago someone did a survey that showed the country is divided up with 20% believing that vaccines cause autism, about 40% being unsure, and another 20% vaccine supporters--something like that. It doesn't all add up because a good percentage of people don't know, and don't care. It is the undecided people that frighten the vaccine manufacturers. People who question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are not about to jump the fence to the other side nor are those that believe everyone must be vaccinated, even force vaccinated. The undecided people, though, are going to eventually fall to one side more or less or to another side and therein lies the tension and anxiety. This is why the California movement is being framed as "pro-vaccine choice." Many people no matter what they believe about vaccines are horrified by the idea of forced vaccination. Even though I am a lot more anti-vaccine than neutral on vaccines, I can see that some vaccines are necessary like travel vaccines and the rubella vaccine as a single shot for women planning a pregnancy. What is ridiculous to me are vaccines like Hepatitis B, Tetanus, and chicken pox. California allows children positive for hepatitis B into the classroom but not children who don't have hepatitis B that don't have the shot. The chicken pox vaccine sheds viruses and is much more of a threat than someone who doesn't have chicken pox but is unvaccinated. Likewise, the whooping cough vaccine is only 18% effective in preventing whooping cough, and actually gives the child an asymptomatic case of the disease and so it is very likely to spread disease. I don't think there is a case of people getting tetanus from casual contact. Given the poorly constructed nature of SB 277 there will be lawsuits. Fortunately we don't yet live in a country of mob rule but rule by law where the rights of minorities are protected. The unvaccinated and the vaccine injured who will not be vaccinated are still a minority (or so the story goes) but they have a right under the law no less than the hepatitis B and HIV children ( and the unvaccinated homeless) who are protected in the classroom.

Still, I too am afraid for California: please pray for us. As for your friend in the kitchen, she will probably remain clueless until her day of awakening. Maybe in the next batch of vaccines administered your friend will be more aware and alert to a reaction. In other words, no one will ever go back to the profoundly clueless state of yesteryear. Those days are gone for good.


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.


another reason why pharma cartels want to poison all children with their toxic cocktails is that most of these children will become chronically ill as a result of poisoning and they will be chronic consumers of other pharma toxins.

tony bateson

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

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)