Mark Blaxill on The Legal Edition: Autism and Environmental Toxins
Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: Ask Your Doctor If Not Having To Listen To Prescription Drug Ads Is Right for You

Carmichael Pediatrics in CA Flouts HIPAA and Exposes Well Kids to Sickness.

Carmichael PediatricsTake a good look at the 'welcome" sign in the Carmichael Pediatrics practice in California.  There goes medical privacy!

This is how a practice is choosing to segregate (there is no other word for this) and punish the "unvaccinated."

An unvaccinated child. What does that mean. No shots ever? Skipped Gardasil? Chose to hold off on an MMR until the sniffles had ended? What does it mean?

We know what sick means. It means sick.  We know what well means. Mmm, we used to anyway. There are precious few truly "well" American children these days.   Well here tends to mean, "not actively sick."  So why not take the well children, who happen not to meet the CDC vaccine schedule, and seat them with the children who are sick?  Doesn't that make sense?

First Do No Harm.

Our friend Laura Hayes sent us this photo. And she tried to get to the bottom of this disturbing practice (pun intended.)  She wrote:

I placed a call this morning to get a statement from one of the doctors at this practice.  I placed

Jim crow 3
Jim Crow Laws Rear Their Ugly Head in 2015

the first call from my home line and was told there were 2 calls ahead of me.  I told the receptionist no problem, I'd wait.  After 15 min. of being on hold, and thinking I'd been forgotten, I also called from my cell phone.  I was told the same thing, two people ahead of me.  I quickly told her she told me that over 15 min. ago, and that I had my other phone still on hold waiting for her to get back to me.  She apologized and said she would come back to me next.  Another 10 min. or so went by, with both of my phones on speaker phone should anyone ever get back to me.  Finally, she came back to my cell phone, asking me to wait just a little longer...I did.  

Finally, she took me off hold on my cell phone and I told her that I would be writing about the sign posted at their office.  I told her I'd like a statement from one of the doctors (not knowing there is apparently just one doctor at this practice) regarding the following:

  • Why the sign?  
  • What specifically does "unvaccinated" mean?
  • Was the sign based on some vaccine safety and/or vaccine efficacy science?  If so, what science specifically?  And/or, was it based on science specific to the "unvaccinated"?  If so, what science specifically?
  • Will those who are positive for Hep B and HIV be segregated, too?  If yes, will there be a sign for that, also?  With whom will they sit and wait?
  • If/when I was able to speak to an actual doctor, I was also going to inquire about the sign with regards to:  live-virus vaccine shedding; the vaccinated harboring pertussis in their throats and spreading it while remaining asymptomatic; the vaccinated making up the majority of all recent outbreaks specific to diseases against which we vaccinate; the unvaccinated being singled out and separated as though infectious despite being well; purposefully placing well children, who happen to be unvaccinated, with sick children, thus needlessly exposing them to illnesses; and the irony that the vaccinated, who are supposed to be superiorly protected (!), needing extra precautions taken to protect them (!).

Lo and behold, I was told that there was no doctor on the premises today, only nurse practitioners.  I was told that the doctor, Dr. Khaira, is only there on Tues. mornings and all day Wed.  I found that highly strange and unusual, so I asked, "Why is he only there at those times?"  She said, "Because he has 5 other offices."  !!!

I have a friend and colleague who is checking into that...meaning having a pediatric office being manned by NPs without an MD on site.  Stay tuned regarding any info forthcoming specific to that.

I will not be holding my breath for the doctor to return my phone call.

Needless to say, Laura did not get a call back. So, she got on the phone again:

I did not receive a return call yesterday from the doctor, so I called back late this morning (Wed. morning) and spoke with a different receptionist, Sonia this time.  Here is a recap of my call today:

I called and told Sonia my name and that I'm from Granite Bay.  I let her know that I had called on Monday to inquire about the sign and that I spoke with a different receptionist.  Since I had not heard back from the doctor, I was calling again in hopes of having him answer my questions about the sign.  She asked what I wanted to know.  I asked her if she had a pen and paper at the ready so she could write down my questions for the doctor...she said yes.  I started on my list below, making it through the 3rd bullet point.  When I began with the questions under the 4th bullet point, she stopped me when I got the words "Hep B".  

She then asked me what I would be doing with this information.  I told her writing it up.  She asked for what.  I said for the Age of Autism blog and for a large email list that included recipients both nationally and internationally. She then emphatically said, "No comment."  I asked what about the doctor, could I please finish my list of questions in case he would like to answer them?  She said, "No."  I asked if that meant that he is unwilling to explain or defend the sign he has posted.  She answered, "He doesn't have to.  It's a private practice."  I asked if she was sure that he did not want to answer my questions.  She said she was sure.  And that was the end of the call.  

If you find this sign and practice of segregation at Carmichael Pediatrics, and the endangerment of healthy newborns, infants, toddlers, children, their mother/father/guardian, and any accompanying siblings, as reprehensible as I do, I hope you will take some form of it posting something to this practice's FB pg., writing to the CA Medical Board, sharing the sign and your thoughts with your contacts, calling the office (916.485.9800), posting your comments on Yelp reviews for this practice, or whatever you think will help put a stop to such a heinous action.


Carmichael Peds must have a PR firm on speed dial. Perhaps their Merck rep placed a quick call on their behalf to defuse what was looking like an explosive situation. Laura got a sorta mea culpa that explained that they had built a special seclusion waiting room in response to a patient with measles. (see below.) Yes, I used the term "seclusion" on purpose.  Has there been a chicken pox seclusion room at Carmichael? Was there ever an HIV seclusion room? How about lice? Those critters can jump. No, no, no, just measles.  California. Measles. Disneyland. SB277. Vaccine mandates.

If it weren't so sad it would be laughable.  Here's the explanation from Carmichael:

Good Morning! We'd like to share our reasoning behind the sign we placed in the main foyer. First, Carmichael Pediatrics has been serving the regional medical needs of children for over 15 years. We are a local, independent, and minority owned group practice. Our practice accepts all insurances and allows for walkins and same day appointments. Further, we encourage vaccination but do not discharge or refuse to care for the children whose parents object to vaccinations. It is because of this policy that our clinic has one of tCarmichael exclusion roomhe highest non-vaccinated pediatric population in the county.

20 months ago a 2 year old toddler was brought in as a walkin by parents worried that their child was exposed to Measles in Disneyland and was sick with symptoms. We quickly isolated the child informed county health and sent the child to Mercy, but not before exposing 6 children to this highly contagious disease. Needless to say all the parents with children present for well exams were upset. Rather than stop taking walkins, or discharging patients whose parents refuse vaccines, we decided to build a small auxiliary waiting area (see the photos below) with its own dedicated HVAC system. The waiting area cannot hold more that 4 individuals. This extreme expense was incurred so as to address the concerns of those parents worried about iatrogenic exposure.

The vast majority of our families (both pro/anti vaccine) are happy with the level of care and love we provide our patients. That's all we wish to do. If parents are unhappy with any of our policies or are not satisfied with our care they are free to choose another provider. However, that has not been the case.

We apologize if this has elicited an emotional response. This was never our intent. Our desire is to the well being of our patients, and our commitment will not deviate from that goal. We will continue to promote vaccines as a safe and sensible way of preventing disease. However, we respect the rights of parents to make choices on behalf of their children. Until mandated otherwise we will not enter into any charged conversation. This inherently deviates from our stated mission.




"There are 2 straight forward types of evidence that clearly demonstrate that MMR vaccine has not exacerbated SSPE, but in fact it has dramatically reduced the incidence of SSPE"

And yet the rate has climbed from 1 in 117,647 (1960-1974 CDC - MMWR 1982) to about 1 in 11 000 (_1 in 2000 for infants_), and according to JusttheVax site: "The current cluster of SSPE cases indicates that the risk of SSPE for infants who contract measles lies closer to 1 in 200". If this happened at all in the pre-vaccine era, it happened rarely because infants were protected by maternal antibodies and natural herd immunity. Vaccination has made measles a dangerous disease for infants.

What struck me in the paper, for two reasons, is the high percentage of SSPE cases who were vaccinated and did not have a history of natural measles. It is said that these cases "should not be attributed to the vaccine; all available evidence points to such cases being due to undiagnosed or unrecorded natural infection, which can be very mild".

Firstly, parents never get to hear from their doctors and the CDC that "natural measles infection can be very mild and is often undiagnosed", do they? What they do hear is fearmongering: "Measles can be a serious disease, about 1 in 4 people will be hospitalized, 1 in 1000 will develop brain swelling, which could lead to brain damage, and 1-2 in 1000 will die, even with the best care" - CDC website. (Some public health sites claim that up to 3 per 1000 will die). This was not happening at those rates in the pre-vaccine era when measles usually only affected children between the ages of 5 and 9 - the safest age to be infected - and catching measles was considered nothing more than a milestone. When a child developed a rash in those days, no one pushed the panic-button, or even considered the possibility that their child might die. In the general population, death from measles was unheard of.

Secondly, despite being vaccinated for measles these children weren't protected from SSPE, and who is to say without real evidence (not epidemiological data) that the vaccine itself could not have been the cause or trigger for SSPE? I am not convinced by "all available evidence points to such cases being due to undiagnosed natural infection" because this strikes me as being similar to there being no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Without evidence from biopsies, it can only be assumed that early undiagnosed natural measles infection was responsible, and even then, other factors such as genetic susceptibility and measles vaccination might be involved. There must be some sort of genetic susceptibility for those of us whose children react negatively to vaccines and develop neurological problems similar to the first symptoms of SSPE which sound very familiar: Abnormal behavior, Irritability, Loss of intellectual abilities, Memory loss, Involuntary movements, Seizures, Speech impairment with poor understanding, Muteness - but because our children's regression followed vaccination, and vaccines are considered to be safe for all children, doctors don't take vaccine reactions seriously, and turn a blind eye and deaf ear when a child regresses. Strangely, or perhaps not, they're not even curious as to why normally-developing children regress, they just accept it happens.

After reading about Simpsonwood; the CDC's destruction of data showing an increased risk of autism following MMR vaccination; and falsifying test results on the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR by using rabbits' blood, do you seriously expect people to believe that if measles vaccine virus could cause or trigger SSPE that it would be revealed to the general public?


Aside from the World Health Organization's high opinion of the positive effects of using a mere 2 doses of vitamin A to reduce deaths from measles, maybe one good preventative solution to protect babies from too many exposures to undue illness such a measles exposure would be that all baby well checks be required to take place in the home, NOT at a doctors office, (i.e. the safety of the child is more relevent than the convenience of the doctor) until after their immune systems are more mature & verified working well and their good nutritional status has been established. Also, take the pediatricians out of the vaccine administration business.

As a matter of thought, maybe any person should only be allowed to obtain any vaccine directly from a specified vaccine administration office tightly regulated by third party auditors, and the doctors there should be limited to only practicing vaccination. In other words, take vaccination administration away from general medicine. But leave all post-vaccine reaction monitoring to non-vaccine administering offices.
This would eliminate the hesitancy of many doctors to acknowledge and report on vaccine adverse effects as well as resolve some of their conflict of interest.

And a ped's office wouldn't have to put up signs to separate the Jewish from the non-Jewish, or the African Americans from the Whites, or the immigrants from the Americans, - oh wait, I meant the vaccinated from the non-vaccinated . . . maybe then we'll be one step closer to putting away the yellow stars for good.

I wonder what that Carmichel practice's sign would convey to the elders in a Jewish congregation? Look at how much medicine was tied into the Jewish segregation and deliberate annialation during Hitler's reign:


I notice you ignored Twylas very succinct and well written point.
Baby misses Hep B at birth, ( no risk factors) = baby is unvaccinated = baby deserves to be exposed to the measles and sit next to infectious people. There is no "but babies are exempt" clause on the sign

In answer to your question, most offices believe in limiting exposure of all illnesses to all patients.
It is simple

1 offer masks to ALL sick patients

2.Ask people with possibly contagious symptoms to call the office first so they can be taken straight to an exam room.

or use the separate waiting room as a temporary isolation room.

It is ridiculous to specifically single out unvaccinated children to sit with contagious children.

Are these the "bad children" who should be forced to get sick and don't deserve the most basic protection from any contagious illness?

And to repeat, as Linda1 and Twyla both pointed out, per the sign that does include unvaccinated babies, who are also "bad" and should be forced to get sick too..

So no one really believes vaccines work, or the vaccinated kids would be protected from the sick ones, and would be the obvious choice to sit with kids with measles..

(Personally, since I have had measles, mumps and rubella, (the illnesses ,not the vaccines), I have no issue sitting with any of these kids.)

Out of interest, if the plague or ebola was going round, would you be ok with unvaccinated children being sent to sit with them, while everyone else huddles in the other waiting room?

If I wanted to spread an illness, I can't think of a better plan than to deliberately send the potentially most vulnerable to sit in with the infected.

John Stone


No, you didn't see a strawman - you saw reasons for not necessarily trusting the source. But talking about strawmen, the Charmichael practice brought up the issue of measles infection when challenged but the notice doesn't say anything about measles. In fact, the notice doesn't make any sense.


"In cases reported since 1990, there were four vaccinated without a history of measles. Brain biopsies were obtained from two of these four cases and in both wild measles virus was identified."

So vaccine + wild measles in some individuals - in your example, 4 cases reported since 1990, = SSPE & death.

The research you quote does not ask the right questions. It is known that the live flu vaccine alters the microbiome of the respiratory tract in mice, leading to greater susceptibility to respiratory infection post immunization and conditions identical to what is seen after a bout of wild flu. We know that pigs given the flu vaccine have more severe flu and severe pulmonary disease than pigs left alone. We know that injected vaccine strain of measles has been isolated in the throat of humans post vaccination, proving that the supposedly attenuated measles virus is able to get around the body quite well after injection. We know that the DTP alters genetic expression, but differently in each individual.

We don't know everything that occurs in and outside of the body after vaccination, but the puzzle pieces do not point toward safety and efficacy, as you would have us believe.

"Getting back to the original question how would those who criticise the segregation deal with the very real risk of measles transmitting to babies too young to be immunised?"

As several here have already pointed out, what makes you think a baby too young to be immunized couldn't be sitting in the sick area?

And back to the truly original point, if the vaccine lunatics hadn't eradicated naturally derived maternal immunity by vaccinating the mothers, their babies "too young to be immunised" would be protected.


I spy with my little eye a STRAWMAN John Stone
Now how about answering a very real problem, how do you handle potential unvaccinated measles cases coming into a GP's surgery, babies have died because of cross infection so let's see your proposal

John Stone


From an unimpeachable source, eh?


@ ATSC & Jenny

There are 2 straight forward types of evidence that clearly demonstrate that MMR vaccine has not exacerbated SSPE, but in fact it has dramatically reduced the incidence of SSPE it's been reviewed in
"Vaccination against measles has clearly reduced the incidence of SSPE through protection against measles, with a reduction of 82–96% in the countries in which this direct comparison was possible"
They looked at possible adverse events in detail:
Theory one: measles vaccine virus can cause SSPE
Theory two: administration of measles vaccine can accelerate the course of SSPE
Theory three: measles vaccine can trigger SSPE in an individual who would have developed the disease later in the absence of immunization
Theory four: measles vaccination in a person who has already established a benign persistent wild measles infection can lead to the development of SSPE where it would not otherwise occur
None of these was shown to be supported by the clinical and epidemiological evidence, eg
In cases reported since 1990, there were four vaccinated without a history of measles. Brain biopsies were obtained from two of these four cases and in both wild measles virus was identified.

Getting back to the original question how would those who criticise the segregation deal with the very real risk of measles transmitting to babies too young to be immunised?



I haven't come across any research on reactions, even basic research on why some children react badly and others don't react at all. Why would they bother when the belief is that vaccine reactions don't have long-term effects?

Eindeker claims that the risk of SSPE post MMR is 0, and blames wild measles virus for these children's deaths, and yet almost certainly the children would have been subsequently vaccinated with the MMR, and therefore it is highly likely that these deaths occurred _post_ MMR - as it did in the two cases I know about. Vaccine believers won't even consider the possibility that a vaccine may have been responsible for these children's deaths. Even when vaccine-injury compensation has been awarded, such as in the case of Benjamin Zeller, vaccine believers deny that it is proof that vaccines cause injury.


The purpose of this sign is not to protect the patients. A doctor's office has germs, and segragated waiting rooms don't help when the patients then wind up in the same exam rooms once they pass through that door. It is a sop to lawyers who want to protect against liability suits, and it is a propaganda device to add to the drumbeat that the unvaccinated should be equated with "sick".

And Eindeker is wrong as well. Imagine that there were a sick teenager at this practice, who went to the sick waiting room. S/he might have been vaccinated and still be sick with measles, as happened in some of the Disneyland cases (refractve altogether or waning immunity). This sick teenager is put in the sick waiting room with other sick children and well children who are not immunized. Also with any sick infants who are there for a sick visit and who are too young to be immunized, as in the case Eindeker cites. Meanwhile, the "well" infants who are not yet immunized and the "well" children who are shedding virus from their vaccines are mixed together and sharing lollipops and toys in the "well" waiting room. The doctor has segregated his patients in a way that MAXIMIZES the exposure to the patients who are the most vulnerable. What about the patient who can't be immunized for health reasons? Where are they to wait?

About five or ten years ago, our pediatrician (whose swank office had separate well and sick waiting rooms) sent out an email with a slightly panicked tone, warning that a child who had come from overseas had been in their office TWICE in the last week or so, who turned out to have measles. The doctor hadn't recognized it or diagnosed it; the parents finally took the kid to an ER and found out it was measles. There were numerous patients exposed in the sick waiting room and the exam rooms; the email was used as an admonition to any unvaccinated patients to get their shots.

Vaccines have become an excuse for doctors to not have to bother recognizing and treating common illness. Look at the way HPV vax is now being used as a reason to not have to run annual pap smears -- think how much money the government and health insurance companies will save if they don't have to pay for those annual exams! The presumption is that the vaccines work and so patients couldn't possibly become sick. It's a boondoggle.

If doctors really were concerned about protecting vulnerable patients in their waiting rooms and not spreading disease, they should stop overbooking their patients so that there's a long wait and instead just have them go right back to the exam rooms. Keep mornings for well visits and afternoons for sick visits.



I don't know about whether it's worse to vaccinate against measles after one has already been exposed to measles naturally, but one might draw a correlation to the HPV vaccine research. I think in HPV that it has been shown to increase the risk of problems when given to females who've already been exposed to HPV, which is what I think is what led to it's being recommended to girls 9 years old and up - they are trying to beat the odds of natural exposure. And they are both viruses.

Which begs a question I haven't looked into. What, specifically, are the differences, between how a body reacts to a bacteria vaccine vs a virus vaccine? Are we seeing any pattern differences of adverse reactions between the two? Has anyone compared them?



"-what other treatments and vaccines did the children have AFTER they were infected with measles? "

This is the very first question that came to my mind because the two children I know about who developed SSPE had measles, and were later given MMR vaccines to protect them against mumps and rubella - no single vaccines for these diseases being available.


Is it wise to vaccinate a child for a disease that they've already had? Has any research been done to show that this is safe?


@Cia Parker,

You may want to (again) review this article:

"...Vaccines for measles have had spotty safety records. Soon after their introduction, the Vital Statistics of the United States began recording deaths from the measles vaccine, along with deaths from other vaccines. By 1970, one of the two original measles vaccines was withdrawn in Canada and the U.S. after causing atypical measles syndrome, a harsh disease triggering high rates of pneumonia. In 1975, the second original vaccine was withdrawn due to 103-degrees-plus fevers, among other severe side effects. Two variants of this vaccine also proved unsatisfactory. A measles vaccine then became part of the combination MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine in the 1980s, only to be withdrawn in 1990 by Canada and in 1992 by the manufacturer after reports from Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Japan blamed MMR for febrile convulsions, meningitis, deafness and deaths. A second version of MMR, now in widespread use, is believed safe by government officials.

Safety aside, vaccines repeatedly failed worldwide in the 1980s and 1990s. As described in “Measles Elimination in Canada”, a 2004 report authored by Canadian government officials and academics, “despite virtually 100% documented one-dose coverage in some regions, large outbreaks of measles involving thousands of cases persisted … Clearly, because of primary vaccine failure, Canada’s one-dose program was insufficient.”

The solution finally arrived at — adding a second dose for children — initially seemed to tame measles outbreaks. But in recent years, the new vaccination regime, too, has been failing, with widespread outbreaks again occurring, including among those who have received the recommended dose and especially among infants too young to be vaccinated, and thus unprotected because their mothers had been vaccinated. Now health experts, scrambling to find solutions, are suggesting numerous reforms, including earlier child vaccinations and second doses for adults..."

Laura Hayes


"The sign is glaringly incomplete, since the biggest waiting room they probably need is one with a sign that says "the unwell vaccinated." Of course they couldn't do that, because it would be politically incorrect for patients to witness THAT waiting room packed all the time, while an "unwell unvaccinated" room sits empty all the time."



Eindeker, how does your logic justify putting the sick kids with the unvaccinated kids?


Are there any details about how those infants were treated for their measles, and underlying susceptibilities, such as nutritional status, what was tried and failed and why, because I'm not sure my child should have to be vaccinated to protect a stranger's child whose parent maybe feeds their baby a highfructose corn syrup laden baby formula, hasn't ever heard of vitamin D3, and goes to a pediatrician who pleads ignorance regarding the WHO data stating that 2 doses of vitamin A (like in cod liver oil) can reduce the risk of death from measles by 70%. To me, if a baby doctor doesn't tell a parent about a universal, easily accessible solution like vitamin A when it comes to measles, it's tantamount to malpractice. And if my doctor treated ANY baby for measles, ain't no reason the doctor's office can't put out a general memo to their practice's patients telling them that prophylactic vitamin A might be in order, prevent a spread. There are numerous ways to strengthen an immune system without have to resort to forcing a completely different family into invasive medical protocols they don't believe in while the family with the actual medical problem maybe does nothing about their own child, including addressing potential nutritional deficiencies. ( oh yeah, and now that pharma's patented an "immune strengthening" medicine, to go along with chemotherapy, we'll be hearing a lot more about how it's possible to strengthen an immune system pharmaceutically, as if it's the only way to do it.)

Does anyone know if there are any studies showing whether babies who have recently received a course of antibiotics are more likely to exhibit measles-like symptoms?

The sign is glaringly incomplete, since the biggest waiting room they probably need is one with a sign that says "the unwell vaccinated." Of course they couldn't do that, because it would be politically incorrect for patients to witness THAT waiting room packed all the time, while an "unwell unvaccinated" room sits empty all the time.


"In the year 2000, an unvaccinated preteen came down with a fever and parents took him to a pediatrician's practise. He infected six children in the waiting room with measles, three of these children were under 12 months old. Two are now dying.
ETA: Two of them developed SSPE as a consequence of their infection on that day and have since died after years of battling SSPE, Micha passed in 2013 and Natalie in 2011."


What an unbelievable crock of shit.

cia parker

Look at this chart:

As soon as the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, rates go from up and down jags in the upper half of the chart to a precipitous drop down toward zero at the bottom. The vaccine usually works to prevent measles. Sometimes it doesn't, but usually it does. How many children in the US get measles these days? A few hundred a year, down from three to four MILLION a year pre-vaccine. And it's not true that children still get measles in the same numbers, but it's called something else now. How many children now get a high fever and a blotchy rash, and are sick for an average of ten days? Because nearly all children get the MMR, and very few get measles, mumps, or rubella. Not a good thing, but that's the way it is. The article linked above points out that polio went into a similar decline starting exactly when the vaccine was introduced in 1955 and invasive Hib infections as soon as the Hib vaccine was introduced. Yes, there are a lot of other things to discuss. Hib infections only quadrupled in incidence AFTER the introduction of the DPT, which weakens overall immune function. So not getting the DPT (and probably other vaccines) would protect children from getting meningitis infections (not 100% however). Getting childhood diseases is beneficial for most and the vaccine is often very dangerous. Yes, absolutely. But the measles vaccine and most of the others usually are effective at preventing the targeted disease for an uncertain length of time. I don't think denying the effectiveness of vaccines in most cases (with the exception of the acellular pertussis and flu vaccines) or trying to say that unvaxed children are so healthy that they'll never get sick with anything are good arguments: they're not true and I think everyone in the outer world knows they aren't true and will not be convinced of the dangers of vaccines based on flawed arguments. The dangers of vaccines are so numerous and we have so much information proving the dangers that I think it's better to use it.

For Eindeker

"In a measles outbreak situation it's quite reasonable to segregate unvaccinated kids with fever from vulnerable babies"

That's not what the sign says - it talks about sick people (and after all sick people may or may not have been vaccinated) - but there is no mention of measles. Of course, with measles in the era before vaccination the infants would have had maternal antibodies, so it is something of an own goal.

Of course, it is never great to have infectious people in an enclosed area: like giving nasal flu vaccine in school. You might think that was completely insane.


Update..second child was called "unvax'd" , again, was he? they said he had not received the required TWO vaccines..and of course he did NOT have measles. Two headlined ,originally, as MEASLES by two respected hospitals, were misdiangosed or USED to push forward misinformation.


Do yo have the actual paper of study this German report is from. Just the Vax is a paid for shrill site of the pharma industry. I'd like to read the entire study or report.

("In the year 2000, an unvaccinated preteen came down with a fever and parents took him to a pediatrician's practise.)

Does the paper actually state the teen had lab confirmed Measles and if so, was a PCR test done to determine if it was a lab strain or a wild strain? If a lab strain infection than the teen cannot be pointed at as the cause of infecting the other children because a lab strain means he/she was infected by someone else who had been vaccinated.

(He infected six children in the waiting room with measles, three of these children were under 12 months old.)
Was a PCR test done to determine again if the infection was a lab strain or a wild infection. It's very easy and convenient to not do the necessary testing to follow the evidence to the source. Especially if there is an agenda.

(Two are now dying.) Documentation please.

(ETA: Two of them developed SSPE as a consequence of their infection on that day and have since died after years of battling SSPE, Micha passed in 2013 and Natalie in 2011.")

Many questions here. Not questioning the death of any child. That is terrible so don't go off on a tangent down that path with the accusation of my being insensitive. There are nuances that have been left out of this.
-you stated two of the children died as a consequence of SSPE BUT not as a direct cause from SSPE. There is a difference. It's like saying the young woman in Washington state who was revealed as having measles at the time of her death FROM PNEUMONIA but MEASLES was not the cause of her death-death was from pneumonia. Yet headlines read she died from Measles which was not the truth. Plus she was fully vaccinated and rendered immuno-compromised by medication she was taking at the time which actually means she developed pneumonia from medical treatment and died. So the children had SSPE when they died but SSPE was not directly the cause of their death. It's a play with words.
-were the children immunocomproised prior to being infected?
-did the children have any vaccines prior to being infected and not just the MMR because any vaccine such as HEP B which they have been pushing for decades on newborns and infants can cause mylein degeneration which can lead to SSPE.
-what other treatments and vaccines did the children have AFTER they were infected with measles?
-how soon after being infected with measles were the children diagnosed with SSPE?
-were the children diagnosed with SSPE because they had been infected with measles and the doctors never looked for any other cause or was it a definitive diagnosis? Misdiagnosis is very common in medicine which is one reason 400,000 people in the US die from medical mistakes each year.
-had a list of vaccines that the children had before their diagnosis been provided in the report or study?
-had the children been given flu shots before their diagnosis?

Mercury & aluminum are corrosives to the mylein sheath of the nervous system which contributes to SSPE.
-Effects of Mercury on Brain Neuron Degeneration:
-Mercury - University of Calgary Study

At Last! Government Documents Locked Up for 30 Years Proving This Vaccine Unsafe Finally Revealed: http://www.whale(dot)to/v/at_last.html.

Please provide link to the report/study so these question can be answered.


Since Disney we've had two front page headlines, "Baltimore child has potential life threatening measles infection"...I found a week or so later with the first one, "vaccine reaction after testing positive at Hopkins, tested negative at the CDC. No one bothered to explain, the child was ill, sent to two facilities, hospitalized, with a VACCINE derived form of measles. He was contagious!! I haven't found the second case explanation, however, had it been measles acquried outside of vaccine, again, it would have headlined.


IF the only infectious diseases potentially treated by pediatricians were those that are vaccinated against, and if those vaccines were 100% safe and 100% effective, you might have a point.

Of course, we know that one has about a one in a million chance of contracting measles in the US, and a much higher chance of contracting any number of other pathogens for which there are no vaccines, and for which one will be at risk if sitting in the pediatrician's sick area, vaccinated or not.

Your example of the under 12 month old babies contracting a fatal case of measles once again shows shortsightedness and does not consider the whole picture. IF Pharma did not attempt to replace natural immunity with vaccine immunity and IF Pharma did not aggressively attempt to replace mother's milk with formula, those babies would have had the immunological protection of both. They were likely weakened by being robbed of what nature meant to provide in the way of protection as their older siblings would have breezed through the measles. Once older and stronger having had the benefit themselves of a matured immune system, built by their mother's milk over their first several YEARS of life, they would have breezed through the measles themselves and lived to contribute TRUE HERD IMMUNITY to their communities and eventually their own young, as was the case in my generation before the ill advised tampering began.

Of course, there are always exceptions but your measles complication rate is way overblown. The truth is that the misuse of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals such as infant formula have wrought havoc on man's ability to live in nature and have done much more harm than good.


This comment is for Eindecker who quotes bogus figures about the incidence of SSPE derived from measles.
"So the action of the paediatrician is perfectly understandable when there are measles cases in the community, the risk of SSPE post measles 1 in 2-3000, risk post MMR 0"

My son got the measles 4 days after getting his MMR vaccine 1t 17 months in 1993. 10 days after this vaccine he developed encephalitis, lost his speech and play skills and spiraled into a common condition now called autism rather than calling it chronic encephalitis. He is severely impaired today and functions as a two year old at best. He was not around any other children at the time because we were very isolated. My husband and I have life long immunity to measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox because we had them as children and I passed on the immunity to the wild measles virus and other diseases because I was breast feeding our son at the time. Having once been a nurse I looked up my Merck Manual book to see why my son was having such a bad reaction to this vaccine and found it said SSPE can be acquired by the wild measles virus and by the measles vaccine. Merck has since covered up this statement but it still says on their site and I quote from it today:
"Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis occurs because the measles virus reactivates. In the United States, for reasons that are not known, the disorder occurs in about 7 to 300 people per million people who had wild measles infection and in about 1 person per million people who received the measles vaccine."
Since the makers of the MMR vaccine claim it can cause SSPE and even gives you the measles rash as a side effect my son could have infected other babies if he had gone to a doctors waiting room, especially if they were breastfed by a mother who did not have life long immunity against the wild virus and her mmr vaccine had worn off as they are designed to do to increase sales.

Angus Files

I think the segregation is for the saviour of the vaxed ,simply because of the un-healthy, immune compromised state they are in. The vaxed kids , most if not all, will have developed a type 2 immune response, rather than a type 1 natural immune response.The un-vaxed are more healthier by far, and I have no fear of mingling my un-vaxed kids with vaxed kids....whether visa-versa applies is another tale...I guess the boards are being diplomatic.



For Eindeker

The sign doesn't say anything about measles.

Presumably, if vaccines stopped people getting sick very few people would now be sick, but that's rubbish. The sign is the result of people thinking in terms of the ideology of vaccination without a reality check. It's brain dead.


Have you thought what you said completely through?

It is understandable to protect those vaccinated kids from any of those diseases they were vaccinated against?

Absolutely, Benedetta the whole point was the sub-12 month babies hadn't been vaccinated......they were too young
that's why the measles infected unvaccinated teenager passed the disease to them, of which 2 have subsequently died
In a measles outbreak situation it's quite reasonable to segregate unvaccinated kids with fever from vulnerable babies

Michelle B

Amazed that people still take their kids to pediatricians. My 3 haven't been in years. No way I would ever again go to the 'doctor' who poisoned my son! Someone gets ill (we had a case of swimmer's ear last summer) I just go to our local doc-in-a-box, get the script, and move on.

That's our 'health plan.'


Have you thought what you said completely through?

It is understandable to protect those vaccinated kids from any of those diseases they were vaccinated against?


Absolutely understandable if there are measles cases, unvaccinated children with measles have led to the deaths of others too young to have been immunized.

German, this century, 2 children died years later of SSPE because an unvaccinated teenager with a fever went to the doctor:
"In the year 2000, an unvaccinated preteen came down with a fever and parents took him to a pediatrician's practise. He infected six children in the waiting room with measles, three of these children were under 12 months old. Two are now dying.
ETA: Two of them developed SSPE as a consequence of their infection on that day and have since died after years of battling SSPE, Micha passed in 2013 and Natalie in 2011."

So the action of the paediatrician is perfectly understandable when there are measles cases in the community, the risk of SSPE post measles 1 in 2-3000, risk post MMR 0


Wait...20 months ago? "20 months ago a 2 year old toddler was brought in as a walkin by parents worried that their child was exposed to Measles in Disneyland and was sick with symptoms."

Wasn't the Disneyland Measles epidemic LESS THAN 12 MONTHS AGO?

Why did they think their child was exposed at Disneyland?

As usual, it doesn't add up.


The measles vaccine never worked. Dr. Gregory Poland of the Mayo Clinic said in 1994 stated:
Conclusion: The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.
Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons.
Poland GA1, Jacobson RM.

In 2012 he made this statement:
"The measles vaccine has failed", he explained two years ago in a prescient paper, “The re-emergence of measles in developed countries.” In that paper, he warned that due to factors that most haven’t noticed, measles has come back to be a serious public health threat. Poland sees the need for a major rethink, after concluding that the current measles vaccine is unlikely to ever live up to the job expected of it: “outbreaks are occurring even in highly developed countries where vaccine access, public health infrastructure, and health literacy are not significant issues. This is unexpected and a worrisome harbinger — measles outbreaks are occurring where they are least expected,” he wrote in his 2012 paper, listing the “surprising numbers of cases occurring in persons who previously received one or even two documented doses of measles-containing vaccine.” During the 1989-1991 U.S. outbreaks, 20% to 40% of those affected had received one to two doses. In a 2011 outbreak in Canada, “over 50% of the 98 individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine.”
Paper: The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih (dot) gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/.

How can anyone say that the Measles Vaccine was effective in any way when it's been know for decades that a measles virus was never actually isolated. In "Fear of the Invisible" this is what Janine Roberts revealed through her research of CDC papers:

How 'Measles Virus' is isolated for a Vaccine.
extract from 'Fear of the Invisible"

In an online paper entitled ‘Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Cell Culture,' the CDC, the central Health Research authority of the USA, lays out how isolation of this virus should be done so it can be used, say for a vaccine. It instructs, first obtain from the patient a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth.

Next 'sacrifice' a marmoset monkey, take some of its cells, then make these cancerous, perhaps by exposing them to radiation, and then give them, on top of this, Epstein-Barr disease! Such extremely sick cells, the CDC informs us, are '10,000 times' more sensitive to the measles virus than are normal human cells.

Now add to these cells a toxin called trypsin. The CDC tells us to expect some cells to fall off the sides of the vessel as if they have been poisoned. They have been. Now add nutrients and glucose and leave for two or three days so the cells can somewhat recover.

Now add to the cells the sample gathered from the patient. After an hour, inspect the cells in the culture with a microscope to see if any of the cells are becoming distorted, or are floating free as they did when trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC says this is proof that measles virus is present and making the cells ill.

This statement made me sit back and think. Why should this illness now be caused by a virus? They had poisoned the cells, made them cancerous..... and now the CDC was saying the cells must be ill because they had measles. Where was the logic in this?

The next stage involves the addition of two antibiotics, Penicillin and Streptomycin, to the culture and leaving it alone for a day. Again the cells are inspected - and if small holes now appear between cells, it is now presumed that measles virus has caused these. If no sign of such damage, this process is repeated. If after this there are still no signs of damage, then the culture is discarded. However, if 50% or more of the cells are now seriously ill and distorted, the culture is set aside and kept in the fridge as ‘isolated measles virus stock suitable for vaccines!' All this without actually detecting the virus itself!

This is the whole process as recommended by the CDC. There is no mention of the need to have a control culture, no mention of any need to isolate the measles virus or even to see it with an electron microscope. The cells are poisoned - and an unseen measles virus is blamed - even thou' the disease the cells have is totally unlike measles. Where is the logic in this?

CDC. Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Culture, Revised November 29, 2001.

Try and find this information online today. it's gone into the abyss just like the SV-40 information-never to grace the CDC database again.

mary w maxwell

I think the sign is OK. I mean, within the vax context -- the one I grew up with -- that a ‘contagious kid’ could give other kids a disease, it seems OK to sequester him in a doctor’s waiting room. I also thought it was nice to be told that this practice (or its PR team) does nor refuse to take ‘naughty’ families.
That said, I no longer believe in the aforementioned context. Any law mandating vax is, IMHO, criminal. To hear my reasoning on that, please read the vax chapter in my book, “Consider the Lilies: a Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status,” which sheds light on the death of Jeff Bradstreet, MD. My book is free at

Dorie Southern

When I was a child I never darkened the door of a doctor's office, sick or well. I am not anti-vaccine for those who believe in them. Those who don't should be exempted like I always was.

If I had vaccinated my children and had experienced a sick and unhappy child afterward, it would have happened only once.

I really don't understand to point of well visits.


Posted by: Linda1 | October 16, 2015 at 11:14 AM

You should ask Dorit before she defends anything having to do with vaccines she should first disclose the fact that her family owns stock in GSK and she profits from the sale of vaccines.


This is insanely passive-aggressive. It's an obvious attempt to shame and punish their non-vaccinating, no-longer-vaccinating, and "low & slow" families, because they can't afford to "fire" all those patients.

The decision to place the "unvaccinated" who they believe to be the most vulnerable to illness with the already sick patients is really a value judgment on the worth of those children and their families, and wildly out of sync with their stated goal of "the well-being of our patients."

Not to mention it's strongly reminiscent of the arrowed signs from the segregated South for "white" and "colored" restrooms, drinking fountains, entrances, and waiting rooms.



Their response doesn't even make sense...Was the 2 year old unvaccinated and that's why they began segregating afterwards? Or did they just make an illogical leap, separating the two groups so that those too young to vaxxed or immunocompromised won't be threatened with potential illness by those who are unvaccinated (and therefore assumed to be carriers)? Parents were up in arms and upset? Why? Because diseases can be transmitted in the world, including in a pediatrics office? Or because this new 'non logic' is that people are inherently born carrying a dozen or so CDC marketed diseases, unless they are vaccinated? Additionally, it shows they don't believe in their own vaccines. Perhaps I am misunderstanding their explanation. But it has so many logical fallacies that I've lost count. By their way of thinking, they should have separated kids who have been in contact with anyone carrying a disease recently, who may now be transmitting. Which would mean recently vaccinated exposure, travels to locations where anyone may have a disease for which a vaccine exists, etc. This period of insanity in our society will go down in history for what it is. Certainly not advanced science or modern. LOL


Good point, Greyone,

Let the staff post THEIR vaccination records in the waiting room. No, at the front door, so that anyone coming in can decide if the staff is vaccinated enough to carry out their professional duties. Let them prove that they should not be confined to their own sick waiting area, according to their own idiotic rule.
Only official records will do. Original copies. Notorized. With picture ID.


My son had a temp of 104F , a rash, and I couldn't wake him, the doc said, imagine if this was the "real" measles , don't worry it's just a reaction. He now has Crohn's,his health and behavior deteriorated from that day. Disney land, from what I understand, was replacing employees with foreigners , no one wants to blame disney for importing a foreign strain to several workers while they were forced to train their replacements. This wouldn't have happened if Disney would have cleared the health of these new workers, and perhaps they've made a settlement , I don't know, but they put their employees and our country at risk. The six employees should sue, but in a strange twist

cia parker

Twyla and Jeannette,

I agree. Many parents would welcome the opportunity for our children to get the formerly universal childhood diseases, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pertussis. Hep-A too. My daughter has had pertussis and chickenpox, and is very healthy, doubtless in part as a result of this education of her immune system. Measles would be even better.

If they didn't vax their children, in most cases it was because they hoped the children might catch these diseases. I'm pretty sure that the Carmichael practice is doing this to punish the heretics, and that it would not make a severely immunocompromised child or one on chemo who was unvaxed sit among the infected.

cia parker

The measles vaccine usually works. That's why the rate of children getting measles suddenly plunged as soon as the vaccine(s) were introduced (the killed virus one soon retired as it sometimes caused dangerous atypical measles). Before the vaccine 99% of American children got measles by the age of 18, as evidenced by that percentage of young Army recruits showing on blood test to have acquired measles antibodies before the vaccine.

So in 1960, 450 people a year were dying of measles. After the vaccine was introduced, essentially no one who had been vaccinated died of measles anymore. But instead many of those vaccinated developed severe and permanent disability, autism being one of the possible outcomes. And children lost the opportunity to reap the benefits for the vast majority of having, and recovering from, natural measles: permanent immunity, a better-trained and more effective cellular immune system, the ability to protect future infants in their most vulnerable year, and protection from a number of diseases and even cancers in later life, especially skin and bone diseases. It was the devil's bargain, but I accept that it really did prevent the deaths of a certain number of children. Parents should know the facts as far as they are known, and make their choice. I had measles when I was six. I was well-nourished and healthy, but that did not prevent 99% of children then from catching measles. The doctor said it was the worst case he had ever seen: I don't know what that meant, I was not hospitalized and only remember having a high fever, which was always the case with measles. I'm glad I had it. I am one of the parents who would always choose the disease over the vaccine, but that would be my choice.


During the testimony from sb792, I seem to recall that a doctor testified that they don't have to take the MMR and dtap that they demanded daycare workers get.
Let's see the sign that says the pediatrician is vaccinated up to date.
Not part of the "herd" I guess.

go rand

Does this guy have a med-chain McPractice? One doctor for umpteen nurse pa's in 5 locations ??? I am sure they are very good at billing insurance companies.

We probably need to bring back the measles and chicken pox parties from the 1950's.

cia parker

"We quickly isolated the child informed county health and sent the child to Mercy."

So they sent the child with "suspected possible" measles to the hospital, without waiting to see if it was going to happen or if it was going to be the usual, non-serious case or one with rare serious complications? THAT'S what's driving up medical costs for everyone! How irresponsible for a medical practice to play with lives and do nothing but monger fear! And then they get to monger more fear by reporting that 30% of the measles cases which DID occur were hospitalized, without mentioning that it was either for quarantine purposes or for mild complications like bronchitis or diarrhea. MEASLES! PANIC IN THE STREETS!

Jeannette Bishop

I suppose, if they truly do support parent choice with vaccination (and I am reluctant to make things more difficult for those trying to stay in private "healthcare" practice), the sign may be catering to families in their practice they would rather not attempt to un-propagandize and thereby risk "eliciting an emotional response."

Though, I would also think if the above is the case, that perhaps those most unhappy with this sign might among the "vaccinated" coming in for "sick" visits.

As their response seems to just side-step the "unvaccinated wells" part of the sign (or treats it like it's a given equation with sickness?) doesn't seem like an honest response, or it might be a response from a group not adequately educated about the actual effects of vaccination (which unfortunately too many "health" providers may honestly be).


That's not even funny, John. Next they'll be combining the flu with the DtaP or DPT and charging in excess of quadruple the cost of the individual shots.

(I made that up. But watch...)

John Stone

Its obvious that the less they work the more you have to have. Whooping cough injections every year!

Laura Hayes


I just LOVE your comment! Aptly put!

Strangely, it's like everyone knows that vaccines DON'T work, as evidenced by this sign and by Twyla's point, and by laws like SB277, YET, people continue to let themselves be DUPED into buying more and more of vaccine products that not only DON'T work, they HARM and KILL! Ludicrous beyond belief, and yet, the madness continues.

Jeannette Bishop

Regarding the 20 months ago, did some transmission occur at Disneyland in early 2014? There were hundreds of cases in the U.S. in 2014.

Some unvaccinated may actually welcome an opportunity to get exposed to the measles, etc., but for those who vaccinated until they crashed the immune systems and general well-being of their child and then stopped vaccinating...and for those who feel their child should avoid both certain infections and vaccinations for whatever personal reasons...this practice does not seem to demonstrate the respect for parental decisions they claim to possess.

It seems like either an admission that the vaccinated pay a price for their "protection" and it's "justifiable" to subject those who don't want to pay that price to as much "consequences" as they can arrange, and/or they don't trust the ability of a vaccine to perform as well as stated and are attempting to skew apparent vaccine/disease outcomes by applying the "safe and sensible" practice of quarantine to one group of children only.


I don't get it. If a child walks in who is infected with measles, that child should be with the unvaccinated children instead of with vaccinated children?


Actually the news that they take Medicaid and don't boot out unvaccinated/not fully vaccinated patients could prompt an increase in patients. The sad thing is that this has become rare enough that parents will be less prone to complain about the segregation since beggars cant be choosers. What it shows is the practice's owners likely have far more fear of the complaints of vaccinated patients' families than the complaints of unvaccinated because the state is behind the vaccinated. That's the only way the sign makes any sense.

I see this practice as being in a bind. It's what bad laws do-- create a system of informants and spread fear of each other. Very East German-esque. I think former Eastern Bloc refugees are about to get a chilling little dose of nostalgia.


I just read the fine print: "Due to the increasing number of unvaccinated children,....".
That makes me happy!
It is clearly segregation and I suppose they can get away with it because one cannot argue that the unvaccinated well children belong under the arrow grouped w/ vaccinated well children that points right or above the arrow directing them left to join sick childern. Assuming innocence, at best this sign was ill thought out and at worst the sign is intentionally misleading or should I say literally misleading. A sick joke, no pun intended.
Now after reading the article I'm shocked. For one this practice is in CA where one can say there is forced vaccination. With that in mind the only people not vaccinated have been seriously injured by vaccines and are usually immunocompromised etc... and should not be exposed to sick people. Honestly, I'm not really shocked at all.


Dr. Khaira should not have a license to practice medicine.

I do not believe the one measles case and 6 children exposed with parents upset story. But just in case it's true, the parents would only be upset because of government/medical/pharma/media/research university (partners in this crime) fear-mongering.

I wonder what Dr. Khaira and other provaccine idiot pediatricians are doing about the 700,000 kids and family members each year who come down with flu-like illnesses within 2 weeks of well child/vaccine visits?

Let's see - which one should Dr. Khaira be concerned about? One measles case with 6 supposedly frightened parents OR 700,000 post pediatrician visit illnesses each year costing a estimated $490 million/year? No doubt some of those 700,000 end up in the hospital. Maybe someone should look into how many fatalities are associated with those post pediatrician well/vaccine visit flu-like illnesses that occur in hundreds of thousands each and every year. Let's see. Over a decade that's 7 million unnecessary, preventable, serious illnesses. If folks stopped taking their kids in for well visits, our country would be much healthier. Talk about protecting Granny. What a concept. As a bonus, we'd need far fewer pediatricians and think of all the money saved from not having to pay for all those health destroying visits.

If you look on this practice's Facebook page, you'll see none other than our good friend Dorit Reiss defending the practice. How did Dorit find out about this? Does Dr. Khaira have Dorit on speed dial too?


Immediately I assumed from the sign that unvaccinated children have a better immune system and won't become seriously ill exposed to sick children. On the other hand "well vaccinated children" are immunocompromised and could become seriously ill if exposed to someone w/ a cold (the CDC calls it cocooning I believe). This pediatrician is protecting children the best they can given the circumstances.
I suppose the CDC would never admit that vaccinated children need to be cocooned, while this fact is painfully obvious to pediatricians everywhere.

Carmichael Pediatrics is pathetic!

Wow! The statements from the Carmichael Pediatrics practice that "Until mandated otherwise we will not enter into any charged conversation. This inherently deviates from our stated mission," is chilling. I guess when SB 277 takes effect in July 2016, they will put up an even more incendiary sign in their entryway-- something like:
"Don't even think about visiting our office if your child is unvaccinated, you tin-foil hat wearing, homeschooling scum!"

Deliberately exposing any healthy children (regardless of their vaccination status) to sick children represents very bad, even unacceptable and unadvisable, medical practice, and Carmichael Pediatrics should be lambasted in social media until they remove their ridiculous sign which quite possibly proves their office is guilty of routine and callous "medical negligence". Carmichael Pediatrics should be reported to the CA State Health Department as well as the CA Medical Board, and they should be investigated and written up for this potentially unlawful practice. Not taking a vaccine doesn't make a child sick and contagious with any particular "vaccine preventable" disease. What about the parents who enter the practice without a flu shot for the season, or are missing a varicella vaccine dose (as the vaccine wasn't even available to them in their childhood years)? Where should all of the unvaccinated parents sit? On the sick side as well? What nonsense from medical professionals who should know better.


Haha you freaked that Doctor out with having to defend this with specifics. They have very little logic on their side and they know it when pushed.


Such a worrisome precedent of shaming folks who choose to not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate. Glad you called them out and gave them pause.
Just as an aside -- I'm a NP and practice autonomously, without the need for a physician on-site, as allowed by law. Perhaps you are confusing NPs with PAs, who in many states require an on-site physician to be present? Laws vary by state, and I'm not familiar with CA regulations, but I'm fairly sure they are not violating any regulations by seeing patients without a physician present. Just FYI


If their story is true, they should have left the sign as well patients and sick patients. It has nothing to do with vax/unvax. The kids with measles was sick.


And - Oh please the HIPPA for was for one thing only; a quick excuse for the pharma, medical types to pull out that card to stop all uncomfortable questions for them - not the patients.


I don't understand the sign. Are there supposed to be some commas in there?

Bob Moffitt

Oh what a tangled web we weave .. when we practice to ....


That's a shockingly bad Photoshop job.


Darn I mean protect the un----- vaccinated from the recently vaccinated.


Soooooo, they are doing it to protect the vaccinated fro the recently vaccinated.

That is a good point.

I think all kids that have been recently vaccinated might really need to put into quarantine for a while after being vaccinated.

John Stone

Disney scare was 9 months ago (January 2015), not 20. This story certainly demonstrates the danger to the public of highlighting one form of sickness - I was recently revisiting how the swine flu scare unnecessarily turned medical practice upside down in 2009 - although oddly enough measles is not mentioned on the notice here.

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.)