BIG PHARMA PROFITEERS PUSH ASIDE YOUR PEDIATRICIAN

The techniques America is experiencing regarding its accelerated vaccine push spanning the last five years is what is commonly referred to as the totalitarian tiptoe or the boiling frog approach. Both describe using small, incremental steps to implement policies and directives that would certainly fail if tried all at once due to the public backlash and distaste. The eventual endgame appears to be mandatory vaccination, for any vaccines, for any reason deemed by officials and upon any population.   

In California and other states the traditional practice of medicine, along with the doctor-patient relationship, is being rapidly squeezed out under the pressure of classical authoritarian moves by its state representatives. California Senator Richard Pan co-authored a new opinion piece with UC Hastings Law School Professor Dorit Reiss published in the journal Pediatrics. The piece followed both Reiss and Pan’s historic talking points and legislative moves to their full authoritative ends. Reiss and Pan write:

“…granting MEs [medical exemptions] to legally required vaccines is not the practice of medicine but a delegation of state” 

For Pan, the Pediatrics opinion piece was in complete juxtaposition to his Sacramento senate floor promises delivered during the run-up to his co-authored Senate Bill 277’s (SB 277) forced vaccine bill. Only three short years ago, Pan mouthed the words “there’s no limitation” when referring to a California physician’s medical discretion in providing a medical exemption for a vaccine to their patients under SB 277. In fact, the bill states that it “…explicitly provides an exemption when a physician believes that circumstances – in the judgement and sound discretion of the physician – so warrant.”

Pan and his other mandatory vaccine ilk have refused to debate several valid and growing issues surrounding vaccines. Their demand that the science around vaccines is settled has done little to stop the greater global debate around several issues and concerns surrounding vaccines. Instead of allowing others to openly debate using their own preferred means and platforms online, Pan attempted to censor both the online conversation and the journalistic discovery process. His now-failed SB 1424 would have required all California-based websites to develop a plan to fight “fake news,” to use state-sponsored “fact-checkers,” and to warn readers — including via social media — of “false information.”         
 
When Reiss isn’t arguing for the benefits of regulatory capture or shaming parents of vaccine-injured children online, she too can be found escaping debate of the inconvenient truths surrounding vaccines. Her recent Pediatrics directive for doctors to work for and answer to the state was just another ham-fisted call for an authoritarian vaccine push. In the past while expounding ways to subvert parental rights and coerce parents, Reiss has publicly stated:

“We can certainly go further than school immunization mandates. For example, France and Italy have criminal laws for certain vaccines and it would be almost certainly constitution [sic] to have them here.”

Reiss, went further in another public forum discussion by suggesting the following:

“Sending basically police to force vaccination is not something done easily, [but] it can be done.”

Having watched these movements for over a decade, author J.B. Handley writes, “It’s no conspiracy to say that Dorit Reiss, Senator Pan, and Paul Offit are all working in concert to remove rights from individuals and hand them to the state…These three individuals are doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, and if they lose their toehold in California’s state government–Senator Richard Pan–they will all be weakened.”

Can we depend on the mainstream media for balance? Recently the Sacramento Bee media outlet’s editorial board, a collection of longtime, unapologetic lapdogs running cover for Richard Pan’s mandatory vaccine utopia, published their list of recommendations for the November 6 elections. To nobody’s shock, their pick for State Senate, District 6 was Richard Pan. There was a time in US history when classical journalism once remained neutral, worked to uncover truths for the people and followed the facts where they led. The SacBee’s one-sided reporting has helped to embed the unconstitutional policies of Richard Pan while simultaneously eroding the state’s doctor-patient relationship and the sanctity of parental health decisions. Over the last five years, the SacBee along with other California outlets such as the LA Times have omitted and actively stifled reporting and debate around vaccinations. An explosion of online conversation and live public forums discussing true vaccine risks and facts is now commonplace and was inevitable in a climate of such media suppression.          

The move to force vaccines is by no means a California phenomenon. New York City’s Board of Health first passed a rule in December 2013, mandating that all children between the ages of 6 months and 59 months who are enrolled in preschools and day care centers licensed by the city get a flu shot. However, a challenge by five parents led a Manhattan judge to issue an injunction against it. The board appealed to New York’s highest court after another panel of judges agreed in 2016 that the city did not have the authority to mandate vaccinations. In June 2018 the New York Court of Appeals unanimously voted to reinstate the rule for children who attend city-regulated or school-based programs to receive the Department of Justice’s most dangerous vaccine according to official US government vaccine court compensation payouts for injuries and deaths.  

In the minds of Pan, Reiss and the prevailing corporate media messaging, public health always supersedes individual, parental or medical decision. Despite the continued censorship and authoritarian-like moves, people around America are standing up to have their voices heard. Running for offices in California, Oregon and Connecticut are candidates who openly back parental rights, free choice and open debate around the topic of vaccination. Despite facing discrimination and calls for censoring their campaign positions by both the media and medical societies, the candidates have remained firm in their campaign pledges effectively creating a beachhead for future candidates. In an age where transparency and open debate is valued, the mandatory vaccine crowd is quickly becoming irrelevant by refusing debate, actively working to silence those who do while simultaneously demanding government force medical products with questionable safety upon the population.