Originally published by the National Health Federation.
THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER: PROTECT OUR VACCINE RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA!
Now that California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law California Senate Bill 277 (the bill forcing the vaccination of every child who wishes to attend public or private school in California unless there is a "legitimate" medical reason otherwise), the National Health Federation (NHF) has been receiving many calls and emails, frantically demanding to know what is being done to curtail the government's insinuation into private parental concerns: the forced, compulsory vaccination of their children with unsafe vaccines pushed by the drug industry and their cohorts in the State legislature. We are facing the pre-Nuremburg forced vaccinations all over again right here in 2015.
Phyllis writes, "Hi, I am frightfully concerned over the passage of the vaccine bill recently in California. What, if anything, can be done about it, and will we be forced to vaccinate our precious children to send them to school? Will there be any exemptions? I am a member of the NHF, and my daughter is beside herself as to what to do to prevent having to vaccinate her two children, ages 1-year and 4-years old. Please answer ASAP. Bless you all and thank you in advance for your help and all you do." Others contacting us express similar concerns. And rightly so.
Vaccines Are Not Safe
"...there are legitimate and documented concerns about vaccine safety. Nobody denies this – all that is in dispute is the magnitude of the harm caused by vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers and their institutional supporters of course insist that any harm from vaccines is minuscule and easily outweighed by the benefits. However this claim is suspect for a number of reasons, not least of which is the stunning degree of conflict of interest and outright fraud within the world of medical research. Leaving aside these issues though, there remain good reasons to distrust the manufacturers' claims.
Numerous studies fly in the face of the manufacturers' claims, showing connections between vaccines and autoimmune disease, asthma, allergies, cancer, encephalopathy, and yes, autism. And even assuming integrity in the clinical trial process, these are not sufficient to demonstrate vaccine safety, as they typically only look at reactions that occur within a few weeks of vaccination, and only compare the adverse events experienced with one vaccine against those experienced with another vaccine – not against an unvaccinated sample. Even the Cochrane Review of the literature on the MMR vaccine, for example, came to the conclusion in 2012 that "(t)he design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate."
Studies that purport to demonstrate the safety of vaccines are similarly flawed and limited in their scope. Indeed, of the list of 42 studies put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics, with an invitation to parents to "examine the evidence", none compare vaccinated against unvaccinated populations, and most look only at either the MMR vaccine or at Thimerosal.
Meanwhile, because of a law that removes any liability from the makers of vaccines for any harm caused by their products, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out nearly $3 billion in damages to the families of those who claim they have been injured by vaccines since its inception in 1988. This is despite the elimination by the DHHS of most of the original adverse events from the "Table of Compensable Events", and what NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher calls '...a highly adversarial, lengthy, expensive, traumatic and unfair imitation of a court trial for vaccine victims and their attorneys.'
And every year, around 30,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which records adverse reactions immediately following vaccination, as reported by doctors, other medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, patients and parents. Thirteen percent of these are classified as "serious" (including death)."
We Are Not Done With the Coercionists Just Yet!
It is sadly noteworthy that this violation of our constitutional rights has occurred around the annual 4th of July celebration in cities all across the United States. But what my friend, Jacob Hornberger, says here applies to the Planet, not just the U.S. and it is being trampled underfoot defiantly right under our noses:
". . . the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man's rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government."
So here, in SB277, we have a classic case of government confusing itself with God. You can read more of Jacob's insight here: https://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/real-meaning-fourth-july/.
Fortunately, former California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly has launched a campaign to place a referendum on the ballot this Fall that would revoke the vaccine bill, now law. As Donnelly says,
"Now, that freedom is subject to the arbitrary control and subjective determination of a doctor and the government, instead of the parent. By referencing SB277, we intend to work with every individual and group willing to collect the signatures necessary to place it on the 2016 ballot and allow all Californians to decide."
"This referendum is not about vaccinations," Donnelly continues, "it is about defending the fundamental freedom of a parent to make an informed decisions for their children without being unduly penalized by a government that believes it knows best."
NHF invites you to sign the petition to add weight to this campaign. You may go to this site: https://sb277referendum.com/
If you would like to donate toward this effort to regain your health freedom, please visit www.thenhf.com.
Those who fought for freedom hundreds of years ago were just like you and me—men and women who believe in liberty and freedom of choice. In that same spirit, we must stand together today and take back our rights.