Vaccine State USA: Mandatory vaccinations are here - California law requires total compliance

Vaccine State USA: Mandatory vaccinations are here - California law requires total compliance

Doug DiPasquale

For those who have been paying attention to things on the mandatory vaccinations front, to say things are heating up would be an understatement. In just the last month, the Powers That Be have been making moves to continually erode health freedoms in favour of a 'total vaccine state', certainly in the US. These moves include: 

 

• Mandatory vaccinations for school children
• Persecution of non-compliant doctors
• The erosion of the last bastion of vaccine avoidance: medical exemptions
• Attacks on freedom of speech, including the silencing of a documentary that exposes the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for the cesspool of corruption that it is

Oddly, much of this is centered around the state of California.

The stereotype of 'the golden state', where New Age hippy yoga gurus meet plastic-surgery-obsessed, too-fast-for-life Hollywood types, surfers, bikers and every other 'born-free', 'take-life-as-it-comers'. Not exactly a place you'd expect to be ground zero for the encroaching medical fascist state.

Anyway, this is what we're starting to see: things kicked off at the start of the year when:

"The California law requiring 100% compliance with the government vaccine schedule (including what, when, and how the child receives the vaccine) in order to be allowed to enroll your child in public or private school, and even daycare (depending on the child's age when enrolling) became effective on January 1, 2016. When passed, the law abolished any philosophical or religious exemption."

The law referred to is California's infamous Senate Bill 277 (SB277).

From the link in the above quoted paragraph, to the Contra Costa County government Health Services website:

"Until January 1, 2016, parents may exempt their children from one or more of the doctor-recommended, school-required immunizations, if vaccination is contrary to their personal beliefs, by submitting a completed form prior to admission into child care, kindergarten, 7th grade, or when transferring to a California school from out of state. To complete the form, parents are required to discuss the risks and benefits of immunizations and the diseases they prevent with a healthcare practitioner.

Personal belief exemptions will no longer be permitted beginning January 1, 2016. Personal belief exemptions submitted before January 1, 2016 are valid until the child enters kindergarten (including transitional kindergarten) or 7th grade. Valid medical exemptions from a licensed physician are not affected and will continue to be accepted. More information about the changes in school immunization law."

So that's that. Where there used to be leeway for parents to discuss their personal beliefs with a healthcare practitioner, now there is no discussion. The freedom to choose the medical treatment for one's children according to one's beliefs, religious or otherwise, has been abolished. If you want your child enrolled in school in the state of California, that child needs to be vaccinated according to the untested CDC schedule.

In the above-linked Alliance For Natural Health article, we learn that "the sponsor of the bill, state senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), promised that the only remaining out - the medical exemption - would not be tampered with. Apparently Sen. Pan was lying." While medical exemptions have not been officially removed, what else can we conclude but that the California Medical Board is seeking to forcibly stop medical exemptions through persecution of individual physicians who grant them?

Capistrano Beach pediatrician Dr. Bob Sears has come under attack from the California Medical Board for doing just that - granting a medical exemption to a child who had previously had a negative reaction to a vaccine. This doctor is being charged with "gross negligence".

As the Orange County Register reports:

"[Dr. Sears] medical record notes that his mother said after his 2-month shots his bowels and bladder "shut down" for 24 hours. After the baby's 3-month shots, she said, he was limp for a day and didn't act like himself for a week."

Dr. Bob Sears

It rather sounds like Dr. Sears actually applied a healthy dose of common sense in providing a medical exemption to this child. Anyone with two neurons firing should be able to deduce that if someone has an adverse reaction to a medical procedure, the last thing any doctor of good conscience would do would be to expose them to that medical procedure again. The fact that it is considered "gross negligence" to have avoided what could have easily been a medical catastrophe is simply jaw-dropping.

From the Alliance for Natural Health article:

"The board's documents say Sears failed to obtain a detailed medical history documenting the boy's prior vaccines and reactions. What is concerning about these accusations is that again, the public is witnessing a medical body/agency attack and attempt to set the precedent to dismantle and erode the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship. Once SB277 was set in motion, there has been a chain of events pointing directly to a concerted effort to destroy the doctor-patient relationship and replace it with bureaucrat-run healthcare. Continually taking a backseat in the eyes of politicians and governing bodies since SB277's activation have been doctor's discretion and parental choice."

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that this is being 'pioneered' in California. After all, anti-smoking fascism began in earnest there. Author John Rappoport, in 'California: In the land of biomed, mandatory vaccinations are par for the course,' where he, in his words, 'plunged into California culture', found that the state is overflowing with biotech companies. From his article:

[T]he number of these companies is staggering. They form a background context in which a mandatory vaccination law is easy to understand—just as a farm bill would be easy to understand in Iowa, or a bill about ranching would be easy to understand in various western states.

Looking into a site covering San Diego and Southern California, Rappoport discovered 660 different biotech companies. He continues, "Along with war-making defense dollars, agriculture dollars, Silicon Valley and Hollywood dollars, California floats on biotech biomed money. And in that context, a mandatory vaccine law is simply par for the course."

With this much money flowing in from the biotech industry, "turning back, rejecting, stepping on the mandatory vaccination bill [SB277] would have sent the wrong signal to biomed businessmen. It was never going to happen."

Also in California, a new bill, Assembly Bill 1671 (AB 1671), currently up before the California legislature, seeks to make it illegal to make, or even report on, undercover recordings of healthcare providers. As usual, the language of the bill is problematic in that it could be interpreted in a number of ways. "Healthcare provider" could be stretched to cover pharmaceutical reps, CDC employees, chemotherapy manufacturers and more.

Nick Cahill, of the Courthouse News Service, says:

"The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of 'health care providers' and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage"

That sounds like blatant suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, not to mention outright censorship.

Cahill continues:

Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.

As Rappoport points out, if the bill passes, it could make screening of the documentary film Vaxxed, or indeed, even reporting on it, illegal. The documentary exposes undercover conversations with CDC employee William Thompson, who confesses that he and his colleagues buried data in a key study on the MMR vaccine; data that showed the vaccine did, in fact, increase the risk of autism in children. The film has been the target of wild censorship attempts since its release. Rappoport again:

"Furthermore, AB 1671 specifically seeks to protect "healthcare providers" from "exposure" via "undercover recordings" documenting their crimes. Certainly, by stretching the definitions a bit, the CDC, for whom Thompson works, and Thompson himself, could be considered such healthcare providers. Lawyers could argue that position until the cows come home and hang up a case in various courts for years—while an injunction prohibiting the screening of Vaxxed remains in force."

As Rappoport says, "criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters. And surely, audio recordings, as well as videos, would be banned." While the bill doesn't mention Vaxxed specifically, its timing is telling. It seems there's little the CDC wouldn't do to keep the public ignorant of their corruption, including making it illegal to publish undercover video of those confessing their crimes.

Vaxxed is making waves around the planet right now. The film's very well-argued premise is that the CDC has lied for well over a decade after setting out, back in 2000, to definitively determine whether the MMR vaccine is correlated with autism. It's a shocking look at the levels of corruption in the CDC, a body that is supposed to have the public interest at its core.

Right from the get-go, the mainstream have been trying to keep Vaxxed quiet, bungling the job all the way. First, the film was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival amid speculation that pressure was coming from on-high.

Next, a Houston Film festival was threatened by unnamed Houston city officials to remove the film from its roster, with accusations of "criminal conduct and extortion," and aggressive threats made to the film festival organizer.

This new attack is much more subtle, attempting to pass laws that will criminalize any dissent against 'the gospel according Big Pharma' and their friends in government. So the question of whether or not bill #1671 will in fact be used against the film is looming, but what is clear is that the pharmaceutical mafia do NOT like Vaxxed, and are making every effort to make sure you don't see it.

Interestingly, we have this from Gary Null:

"During the past eight years, we have directed and produced three award winning documentaries about vaccine injury, autism, and the serious flaws and failures in CDC-approved vaccine science. These films, however, have focused more upon the medical science that challenge vaccine safety and efficacy rather than the rampant corruption in our federal health agencies in Washington.There was no outcry over these films being screened at film festivals across the nation, although considerable venom came forth from the pharmaceutical paid trolls in the blogosphere and the Sci-copaths in the cult of evidence based medicine. While our films are explicitly anti-vaccination, Vaxxed isn't. So what might account for this massive media outrage?"

Good question. Could it be because the film, instead of focusing hard on the science, instead shows how corrupt 'the man behind the curtain' actually is? Again, from Gary Null:

"Vaxxed is not anti-science. Nor is it anti-vaccine. Instead it presents unquestionable evidence of corruption and fraud that is anti-CDC. The film endangers the professional credibility and integrity of the nation's most powerful federal health agency as well as the private vaccine industry's profits that the CDC protects. If it were simply a visual screed of voices opposing mandatory vaccinations, the documentary would have its burst of limited popularity and quickly be forgotten as so many anti-vaccine films are. Vaxxed, on the other hand, incriminates federal officials and scientists at the highest levels, including former CDC Director Julie Gerberding, with the intentional coverup and manipulation of the agency's own research data to continue its public relations charade that vaccines under no circumstances are associated with the US's increasing autism crisis in our midst."

In my last article, I covered the latest CDC push to stamp out every last smidgen of medical freedom for American citizens. In it, I discussed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the August 15, 2016 edition of the Federal Register to amend federal public health law. The tricky language of the document, along with the fact that it's coming from the CDC, which, as I said in my last piece, has "a proven track record of hyping up non-issue diseases, hiding uncomfortable facts that will make their vaccines look bad, and widespread corruption," make this a dangerous move. But the document itself further hints at forcible detainment, quarantines and forced medical procedures, including vaccinations.

Quoted from my last piece:

In a populace so tied to believing the word of their leaders (with the help of the mainstream media) the public will, apparently, completely buy into any perceived threat, no matter how inane. A little research goes a long way toward tearing down the official narrative, but the number of people willing to take this step remains shockingly small. As a result we have a population so steeped in lies they are willing to submit to whatever steps their leaders deem appropriate "for their own safety", despite the fact that the actual threat is quite minuscule.

Given that all the moves the government-pharmaceutical nexus is making depend upon a populace that is brainwashed into thinking anything that forces people to get vaccinated is for the greater good, anything that might threaten that perception will be intolerable. How anxious are people going to be about getting detained, based on nothing more than suspicion of a non-medically trained, trumped-up security guard, by an institution that they know has been lying to them for over twenty years?

Anyone even remotely suggesting that "vaccines cause or contribute to autism", can be painted as 'nutjobs' by the media. It won't matter that they're taking a nuanced view and not flatly rejecting vaccines: no one will pay attention to what they're actually saying. But by sidestepping that typical discourse and highlighting the corruption, Vaxxed shines a light at the heart of the issue. Rock-solid evidence of corruption can't be dismissed as "anti-vaxxer propaganda" quite so easily. And if there's damning evidence of tampering, the big question on everyone's mind has to be why?

Also in vaccine news, we've got this piece highlighting what may actually be behind your doctor's motivation to make sure you and your family get the jab. Wellness and Equality received a "Physician Incentive Program" document from a reader that shows health insurer "Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that's $40,000."

The article continues:

"But here's the catch: Under Blue Cross Blue Shield's rules, pediatricians lose the whole bonus unless at least 63% of patients are fully vaccinated, and that includes the flu vaccine. So it's not just $400 on your child's head - it could be the whole bonus. To your doctor, your decision to vaccinate your child might be worth $40,000, or much more, depending on the size of his or her practice."

Combine this with the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has just told doctors that it's OK to drop families from their practice who refuse to vaccinate and you've got a clear picture of what the future of healthcare looks like in the US. Get the jabs, all of them, or go without medical coverage, because your doctor isn't interested in wasting his or her time with patients who aren't bringing in the bonuses.

All of this paints a pretty bleak picture. Indeed, it reads like a dystopian science fiction story. The moves being made, both behind the scenes and on the main stage, are a blatant attack on Americans' freedom of choice in regards to their own medical decisions and those of their families. This makes a mockery of the supposed 'Land of the Free' the US imagines itself to be. Forced medical procedures, persecution of those following their conscience, censorship, suppression of free speech, corruption and coercion of patients by their doctors - none of this describes "freedom", by any possible stretch of the imagination.