Ok, some of you were put-off by the “anti-vaxer” moniker. Some suggested you’re all health freedom fighters. I’m not willing to bestow that laudatory title until I see a more cohesive, rational and convincing case made, though I’m sure I am a minority of one on this in the health freedom community.
How about the designator “vaccine-concerned” or “VC” for short? It’s neutral, accurately descriptive, and this is my post. From now on, I am going to refer to you as “vaccine-concerned” or “VC.” I mean to include both ends of the VC spectrum, and here are the ends of the spectrum as I see it.
At one end are those who want vaccination criminalized because it harms everyone who is vaccinated. It includes people who deny that vaccines have had any benefit to mankind, and that it’s all a pharma scheme to suck money from the masses. It also includes the personal freedom people who think the government has no right to force anyone to get any vaccine or impose any consequences on the unvaccinated, regardless of the perceived consequences that the ignorant majority and conventional scientists think will be caused by the unvaccinated.
At the other end of the spectrum are the folks who are concerned that there might be too many vaccines for kids right now, who accept some preservative-free vaccines for some serious diseases, unless there are sound medical contraindications. It also includes those who will compromise their personal freedom to get inoculations before traveling to some foreign countries where diseases survive which have been long extinct in this country. This end of the spectrum also includes those who understand that the VC, who have strongly-held and metaphysically true beliefs, have to acknowledge and work within the system in which they currently represent a minority view. Indeed, these folks even understand that their views are considered by the mainstream to be anti-science and fringe. (See the just published article in the New Yorker entitled “The Mistrust of Science” by mainstream surgeon, author (and medical establishment tool), Atul Gawande.
(I have to admit that his biography of cancer, The Emperor of All Maladies was breathtaking. Haven’t read his new book The Gene, but I will. I don’t recommend any of his writings to the VC. To borrow a phrase from an email I got about the prior post, it will just make your blood boil.)
Now that we are past the nomenclature, I’d like to address a criticism most colorfully phrased by a chiro who said that I should “grow a pair,” tell the docs how to solve the problem and give the VC parents what they need. Well, I’ve taken that criticism and the metaphor to heart, and I’ve come up with a simple solution which I think satisfies the “grow a pair” admonition.
There is a loosely formed, nascent California group of vaccine-concerned physicians. They approached me to file a direct legal challenge to SB 277. I declined. The July 1st deadline is fast approaching. I’m told that VC parents don’t know what to do, and desperately need a solution. So you want a simple and manly solution. Here it is: Each member of the VC group of physicians should write medical exemptions for any VC parent who comes to them. If the physician group wants, I’m sure Tim Bolen will post the physicians’ names and contact information to make it easier for the VC parents.
I point out that the California law does not require that the exemption be signed by a board certified pediatrician.
Any California licensed physician can write the exemption, and the decision is not challengeable by the school.
VC California licensed docs have the absolute power to grant the wishes of the VC community.
Of course, it would be best if there was a doctor/patient relationship. All the statute requires is:
“a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt . . . .” (Emphasis added by me)
So what’s the problem?
Many VC physicians have told me that vaccines are dangerous or there are too many of them given over too short a time. These physicians are convinced that the legitimate and best scientific evidence does not support vaccination, or at least the current vaccination schedule. If so, then all you are doing is writing a letter that the child should not receive medically unnecessary or unproven preventive treatment.
In addition, VC advocates, including docs, have informed me that vaccines and/or the California vaccine mandate violates the Helsinki Declaration and the Nuremburg Code. If so, it surely violates the Hippocratic Oath because vaccines harm children, or so I am informed, and you all know the “first do no harm” thing. If forced vaccination violates these universal medical/ethical rules, which are morally superior to US law, and if the science overwhelmingly supports the rejection of vaccination (or even if science just does not support its use), as I am repeatedly told by the passionate VC community, then VC physicians have professional duty and a moral obligation to sign a medical exemption for every child of VC parents.
I would go even further; refusing to write exemption letters makes the VC physician complicit in what I am told is the greatest medical fraud in history, namely the perpetuation of the international vaccination hoax.
Writing exemption letters for all-comers would be a complete and perfect solution for the California VC community. But what about the physicians writing the letters?
Sure it’s possible that the schools and medical board might not appreciate the courage and principled views of the letter writers in helping the VC exercise their Constitutional rights, but since the real science is on their side, it should all work-out in the end. As long as the medical evidence is on your side and the experts are qualified and authoritative, any competent board attorney should be able to convince the fact finder (initially an administrative law judge) of the correctness and righteousness of the VC position. So you have nothing to worry about.
Besides, I’m told there are many California VC licensed physicians. So even if a few are lost to board sanction, the VC community could have its needs met for many years, or until the lawsuit(s) directly challenging the constitutionally of SB277 law is/are resolved in the VC’s favor, which I have been assured will happen.
SO BALLS TO THE WALLS! It’s time for the VC doctors to step-up and lead the fight.
I’m ready. Who’s with me?
Richard Jaffe, Esq.
(Now with a pair)