Jump to content
ACN Latitudes Forums

Recommended Posts

A bill has been proposed in CA to eliminate the personal belief and religious exemption for vaccines (SB277). If you live in CA and feel it's important that parents maintain the right to refuse or choose the timing of vaccines and other medical procedures/medicines for their children, please join the Facebook group "Californians for Parental Rights and Choice." Here's a description:


"We are a grassroots group of parents from California who believe it is in our best interest as a society to maintain freedom of choice for what we put into our children’s bodies. We are concerned about the bill (sb277) being proposed to eliminate the religious and personal belief exemption from vaccines and we are ready to fight every step of the way. We gather together to join forces against a government that has no right to take away our parental freedom to protect our children and make decisions in our children’s best interest. We are against mandatory vaccines."


They currently have over 3,300 members and are organizing calls and letters to CA legislators. There will also be a protest in Sacramento at some point.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



I hope it gets closer to 200,000. The way the signatures are coming in it should make 100,000 with no problem, but we need every signature we can get.


Did anyone notice if you click on the open petitions tab, there is a petition for Lyme?



we petition the obama administration to: Acknowledge Existence of Chronic Lyme Disease & Co-Infections and Develop Legislation & Funding for Treatment



open until March 28th

Edited by kim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whitehouse.gov petition is important, but equally important is shutting down this proposed CA law. Because you can bet as soon as it passes, a similar law is coming to every other state in the near future.


CA residents, please sign this petition to Governor Brown: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/prohibit-mandatory-vaccinations-in-california.html


And join Californians for Parental Rights and Choice FB page to stay updated and get involved as much or as little as your time allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...SB 277 is bad news.

Medical exemptions can be very difficult to obtain. Also, I would like to quote another parent:

"I hope everyone understands SB 277 isn't just about measles (or polio or pertussis). The CDC schedule for kids up to age 5 now includes 36-38 vaccines. To put that in perspective, in 1983 that number was only 10 vaccines. The United States now has the highest number of mandated vaccines for children under the age of 5 of any country in the world, double the western world's average, yet the US ranks a pathetic 34th in infant mortality.

Also, be aware that SB 277 allows the state to add ANY number of future vaccines to the school (public, private, home school) requirements, "any other disease deemed appropriate by the department". If the state decides your child "needs" a HPV vaccine by the time they are 10, that could be easily be added to the list. Lots of new vaccines are coming down the pipeline, are you ready to give your government carte blanche to mandate each and every new vaccine big pharma can push on them?

I for one, would like to retain my parental right of informed consent. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted on babycenter, I'm copying here just in case:





Between December 17-20, 2014, measles arrived at the happiest place on earth and all broke loose. Anti-vaxxers were shamed and maligned by everyone from Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel to Dr. Richard Pan.



According to the California Department of Public Health's latest measles surveillance report (3/6/15), since December of 2014, there have been 132 confirmed measles cases reported in California residents out of a population of 38.8 million.


40 cases visited Disneyland during the period in question.

81% were not hospitalized.

56% were over the age of twenty.

18% were between the ages of five to nineteen.

19 cases were between the ages of one through four.

15 cases were under the age of one.



This affected exactly 34 kids from birth to age four.




Since the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in December of 2012, there have been 109 school shootings and no legislation.




There is no measles epidemic. There is, however, an epidemic of vaccine legislation.




Currently, there are three bills in the California state legislature regarding vaccines: SB-277, SB-792 and AB-1117.



SB-277 focuses on eliminating personal belief exemptions which in California includes religious exemptions.




Its aim is listed below:


(a) A means for the eventual achievement of total immunization of appropriate age groups against the following childhood diseases:


1) Diphtheria.


2) Hepatitis B.


3) Haemophilus influenzae type b.


4) Measles.


5) Mumps.


6) Pertussis (whooping cough).


7) Poliomyelitis.




9) Tetanus.


10) Varicella (chickenpox).




Only one company manufactures the polio vaccine and that's Sanofi. Only one company manufactures the varicella vaccine and that's Merck. Only one company has a monopoly on the mumps vaccine in the United States and that's Merck. Only one pharmaceutical company profits from the sale of all the vaccines on this list and that's Merck (Merck and Sanofi Pasteur are a global joint venture).




The proposed legislation has nothing to do with a measles epidemic. There is no public health crisis that requires ten mandated vaccines, with an eleventh option of any vaccine "deemed appropriate."


This is an attempt by Merck and the politicians they fund to capitalize on a measles outbreak, one they may actually be responsible for and can profit from.




California's Political Reform Act of 1974 is designed to ensure that:


- State and local government serve all citizens equally, without regard to status or wealth.


- Public officials perform their duties impartially, without bias because of personal financial interests or the interests of financial supporters.


- Public officials disclose income and assets that could be affected by official actions and disqualify themselves from participating in decisions when they have conflicts of interest.


- Elections are fair.


- Public officials and private citizens are given the means to vigorously enforce political reforms.




"No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest." Even though the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United upheld political spending as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, it did not legalize financial conflicts of interest.






SB-277 was introduced by Senators Dr. Richard Pan and Ben Allen.


Principal Co-Author is Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez.


Co-Authors in the Senate:


Senators Jim Beall, Marty Block, Kevin De Leon, Isadore Hall, Robert M. Hertzberg, Jerry Hill, Hann-Beth Jackson, Mark Leno, Mike McGuire, Holly Mitchell, Jeff Stone, Bob Wieckowski, and Lois Wolk.


Co-Authors in the Assembly:


Assembly Members Catharine Baker, David Chiu, Jim Cooper, Evan Low, Kevin McCarty, Adrin Nazarian, Anthony Rendon, Mark Stone, and Jim Wood.




We analyzed Merck's annual reports on corporate contributions from 2006-2014.




Highlighted in green are legislators whose campaigns received contributions from Merck.




Listed below are some of the campaigns that received funding by year:




2006 - Ed Hernandez for Assembly 2006, Wolk for Assembly 2006 and Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D., Democrat for Assembly 2006.




2007 - Lois Wolk for Senate 2008




2008 - Kevin DeLeon for Assembly 2008, Friends of Bill Monning, Carol Liu for Senate




2009 - Wolk for Senate 2012, Holly J. Mitchell for Assembly, Jerry Hill for State Assembly 2010, Tax Fighters for Anderson 2010




2010 - Dr. Richard Pan for Assembly 2010, Friends of Bill Monning for Assembly 2010, Holly J. Mitchell for Assembly 2010, Kevin de Leon for Assembly 2010, Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D., Democrat for Senate 2010, Wolk for Senate 2012




2011 - Feinstein for Senate, Jerry Hill for Assembly 2012, Kevin De Leon for Senate 2014, Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D., Democrat for Assembly 2014, Wolk for Senate 2012




2012 - Bill Monning for Senate 2012, Jerry Hill for Senate 2012,Dr. Ed Hernandez for Senate 2014, Major General Richard D. Roth USAF (Ret.) for Senate 2012, Taxpayers for Bob Huff 2012, Feinstein for Senate




2013 - Dr. Richard Pan for Senate 2014, Anthony Rendon for Assembly 2014, Hertzberg for Senate 2014, Holly J. Mitchell for Assembly 2014, Jerry Hill for Senate 2016, Kevin de Leon for Senate 2014, Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D., Democrat for Senate 2014, Major General Richard D. Roth USAF (Ret,) for Senate 2016




2014 - Jim Cooper for Assembly 2014, Holly J. Mitchell for Assembly for 2014, Kevin De Leon for Senate 2014, Vidak for Senate 2014




Note how many Democrats currently in high positions of power were funded by Merck since the beginning of their careers and the ambitious titles of their committee names. Merck either had a way of predicting the winner of future elections or determined the winner of future elections.




SB-277 is now in the Health, Education and Judiciary Committees.




Health Committee Members:


Senator Ed Hernandez ( Chair )


Senator Janet Nguyen (Vice Chair)


Senator Isadore Hall, III - Co-Author


Senator Holly J. Mitchell - Co-Author


Senator Bill Monning


Senator Jim Nielsen


Senator Richard Pan - Author


Senator Richard D. Roth


Senator Lois Wolk - Co-Author




Education Committee Members:


Senator Carol Liu ( Chair )


Senator Bob Huff (Vice Chair)


Senator Marty Block - Co-Author


Senator Loni Hancock


Senator Connie M. Levya


Senator Tony Mendoza (Author of SB-792)


Senator Richard Pan - Author


Senator Andy Vidak




Judiciary Committee Members:

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson ( Chair ) Co-Author


Senator Andy Vidak (Vice Chair)


Senator Joel Anderson


Senator Robert M. Hertzberg


Senator Mark Leno


Senator Bill Monning


Senator Bob Wieckowski - Co-Author




Senators without any known conflicts of interest with Merck and aren't sponsoring the bill are highlighted in yellow. Note that they are the minority in every single committee.


This isn't surprising considering Merck's long history of unethical and fraudulent behavior. They have paid out billions of dollars in settlements over Vioxx, NuvaRing, Fosamax and Vytorin among others.


Currently, in the state of Pennsylvania, case #2:10-cv-04374-cdj UNITED STATES VS MERCK is pending. The Department of Justice is involved. Former virologists now whistleblowers allege that Merck falsified data with the MMR II vaccine in order to meet the 95% efficacy rate which is the benchmark required by the FDA to maintain its monolopy on the mumps vaccine which extends to the MMR II. This suggests vaccine failure and fraud, not unvaccinated kids, as the reason for the outbreaks.




Falsely stating that all vaccines are safe and that the science is settled when this case exists is either an example of gross ignorance or evidence of a cover up. If either is the case, one should not be legislating vaccine mandates on Merck's behalf.




Dr. Richard Pan and the medical establishment tout herd immunity as the reason for the need to mandate vaccines with 95% being the magic number. California is already at a 2.54% exemption rate for the state overall. Dr. Pan claims there are pockets with higher percentages and these pockets are putting everyone else at risk. However, there have been no outbreaks or deaths in these unvaccinated, wealthy and educated areas. The only risk is Dr. Pan using his authoritative role as a pediatrician to benefit politically.




According to the Sacramento Bee, Dr. Pan opened a campaign committee to raise money for his Senate campaign, the day after his Assembly win. As a Senator, he owes "paramount loyalty to the public." Instead, he has been violating the First Amendment rights of California voters by either blocking them on social media in order to silence their legitimate concerns or allowing out of state astrosurfing trolls to harass them, including parents of vaccine injured children.




During Dr. Pan's public media tour and on social media, he's been calling out "anti-vacciners." His pejorative use of the term shows that he has no interest in the actual concerns of constituents, the majority of whom aren't anti-vacciners but parents who are pro-choice when it comes to making medical decisions on behalf of their children.




Informed consent is to medical ethics as freedom of speech is to a democracy. Using fear and propaganda to create a manufactured epidemic and using that epidemic to do away with informed consent is unethical, dangerous and sinister.




1. We ask that all three bills are dismissed immediately.




2. We ask for the resignation of Dr. Richard Pan, who has abused his authoritative roles as Senator and Physician. We also ask that Richard Pan's medical license #84883 be revoked.




3. We ask for an investigation into the members of the Health Committee in regards to their financial ties with Merck and how it may have affected past legislation. If there is evidence of any wrongdoing, we ask that they resign.




4. We ask for greater regulation and transparency with regards to campaign finance in the state of California.




5. We ask that Merck be held responsible for acting unethically.

Edited by eamom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not just a K-12 problem; the universities are going to require them too and with no personal exemptions. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-plans-require-vaccinations-incoming-students.


This is not just a California problem; legislation is popping up all over. NVIC.org is a national organization -- they have a long list of pending legislation nation wide. This is the first time ever that they have seen so much activity to mandate vaccinations. And many of the universities in those states are already requiring vaccinations. Where is my/ your pandas child going to go to college?



Link to comment
Share on other sites



I am involved in my state at a local and state level. While working on all of this, the concerns AW refers to about the resurgence of measles has not been lost on me. I have a fear of varicella and measles particularly for autoimmune prone and OLDER age of onset. My kids got their first MMR at 12 mos. Again, parents are left in a horrible position here, for ourselves and our children. Thanks for posting


I'm probably going to edit this down to just the links, but I found this information concerning.


All bolding mine


Volume 16, Issue 20, December 1998, Pages 2052–2057

Vaccine-induced measles virus antibodies after two doses of combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: a 12-year follow-up in two cohorts

In Finland, a two-dose vaccination programme against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) was begun in 1982. The programme with high coverage (97–98%) has eliminated these three diseases from Finland. The aim of the present study was to follow up the kinetics of measles virus antibodies in MMR vaccinated cohorts. We have followed the kinetics of measles virus antibody levels induced by vaccination in the same individuals immunized with their first MMR vaccine in 1982. After 12 years 80% of the original children remained available for sampling. Antibodies to measles virus were measured by haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and plaque reduction neutralization (NT) techniques. The primary dose induced 99.4% seroconversion for measles with a geometric mean HI antibody titre (GMT) of (±219), equivalent to 4304 mIU (milli-International Units) ml-1 in group A. The 12-year follow-up specimens showed a measles seropositivity rate of 100% as assayed with the HI and NT tests with a mean HI antibody titre of (±54), equivalent to 624 mIU ml-1. The vaccination-induced measles virus antibodies decline in the absence of natural booster infections. It is important to follow how long the protection achieved by the present vaccine programme will last after elimination of indigenous measles.


Measles in Children Vaccinated With 2 Doses of MMR

OBJECTIVE: A previous measles outbreak investigation in a high school in Quebec, Canada identified 2-dose vaccine effectiveness of 94%. The risk of measles in 2-dose recipients was significantly higher (2–4 times) when measles vaccine was first administered at 12 versus =15 months of age, with no significant effect of the age at second dose. Generalizability of this association was also assessed in the expanded provincial data set of notified cases.

METHODS: This matched case–control study included only 2-dose recipients. All confirmed (laboratory or epidemiologically linked) cases in patients aged 5 to 17 years were included. Each case was matched to 5 controls.

RESULTS: A total of 102 cases and 510 controls were included; 89% of cases were in patients 13 to 17 years old. When the first dose was administered at 12 to 13 months compared with =15 months of age, the risk of measles in participants outside the outbreak school was 6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.33–29.3) and was 5.2 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.91–14.3) in the pooled estimate (participants from the outbreak school + outside that school).

CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater risk of measles among 2-dose recipients whose first dose was given at 12 to 13 months rather than =15 months of age is confirmed in the larger Quebec data set. The mechanism remains unknown, but vaccine failures in 2-dose recipients could have substantial implications for measles elimination efforts through 2-dose vaccination. The optimal age at first dose may warrant additional evaluation.

3rd paragraph under discussion
A pooled fivefold greater risk of measles among those whose first MMR dose was administered at 12 to 13 vs =15 months is concerning, especially in the context of measles elimination efforts that require high levels of immunity. Previous serologic studies7,10,22–26 based on age at first dose are consistent with our epidemiologic observations. Although caution is needed in the interpretation of immunogenicity findings based on laboratory, assay, and protective thresholds applied, serologic studies have shown that early age at first dose leaves an imprint that affects both the immediate second-dose antibody response and persistence. Children first vaccinated at 12 months compared with =13 months are less likely to seroconvert after reimmunization and to have significantly lower antibody levels.10 This phenomenon has also been noted in children vaccinated younger than 12 months.7,22,23 Children without detectable plaque reduction neutralization antibody after a first dose responded to revaccination with a primary-type response and maintained antibody titers after revaccination above levels believed to be protective, whereas revaccination of children with low levels of plaque reduction neutralization antibody induced a secondary-type response, with antibodies returning rapidly to levels below protective threshold.24 In Germany, among ~7000 2-dose recipients, the proportion without detectable antibodies decreased steadily with older age at first dose to reach a nadir between 18 and 23 months.25 The proportion seronegative also increased with time since the second dose, and the proportion seronegative =6 years after the second dose was similar to that observed in single-dose recipients.25 Similarly, in the United States, increased antibody titers in response to a second MMR dose rapidly returned to prebooster levels, and most subjects (72%, 13/18) with low titers 10 years after boosting were also in the lowest quartile for antibodies before boost.26 This “return” to the level of protection afforded by the first dose based on time elapsed since the second dose is consistent with the similar VE we observed after 1 or 2 doses (95.9% vs 94.2%, respectively) during our recent school outbreak investigation.15



Although unvaccinated people should remain the prime target for measles vaccination, the unexpected vulnerability we have identified in twice-vaccinated people could ultimately lead to failed measles elimination efforts. If the effect of early vaccination permanently alters the ability to respond to subsequent doses, even adding a third or fourth dose may not provide long-lasting protection. Therefore, it is critical to understand the mechanisms of primary vaccine failure or loss of vaccine protection that our findings may signal.

Epidemiology and Infection
Epidemiology and Infection / Volume 124 / Issue 02 / April 2000, pp 263-271


Failure to seroconvert (primary vaccine failure) is believed to be the principal reason (approx. > 95%) why some vaccinees remain susceptible to measles and is often attributed to the persistence of maternal antibodies in children vaccinated at a young age. Avidity testing is able to separate primary from secondary vaccine failures (waning and/or incomplete immunity), but has not been utilized in measles epidemiology. Low-avidity (LA) and high-avidity (HA) virus-specific IgG antibodies indicate primary and secondary failure, respectively. Measles vaccine failures (n = 142; mean age 10·1 years, range 2–22 years) from an outbreak in 1988–9 in Finland were tested for measles–virus IgG avidity using a protein denaturating EIA. Severity of measles was recorded in 89 failures and 169 non-vaccinees (mean age 16·2 years, range 2–22 years). The patients with HA antibodies (n = 28) tended to have clinically mild measles and rapid IgG response. Among failures vaccinated at < 12, 12–15 and > 15 months of age with single doses of Schwarz-strain vaccine in the 1970s, 50 (95% CI 1–99), 36 (CI 16–56) and 25% (CI 8–42) had HA antibodies, respectively. When a single measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine had been given after 1982 at 15 months of age, only 7% (CI 0–14) showed HA antibodies. Omitting re-vaccinees and those vaccinated at < 15 months, Schwarz-strain recipients had 3·6 (CI 1·1–11·5) higher occurrence of HA responses compared to MMR recipients. Apart from one municipality, where even re-vaccinees had high risk of primary infection, 89% (CI 69 to [similar] 100) of the infected re-vaccinees had an HA response. Secondary measles-vaccine failures are more common than was more previously thought, particularly among individuals vaccinated in early life, long ago, and among re-vaccinees. Waning immunity – even among individuals vaccinated after 15 months of age, without the boosting effect of natural infections should be considered a relevant possibility in future planning of vaccination against measles.

Edited by kim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...