It is no secret that mandatory vaccination is being attempted throughout various parts of the world. In California, Senate Bill 277 (SB277) is targeting all children with ever increasing vaccine schedules while similar U.S. states works towards the same ends. Throughout the world, poor populations without legal representation continue to serve as testbeds for final phases of experimental vaccines.
For those doing their research, a clear push can be seen, nationally and internationally, being quarterbacked by pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyist, purchased regulatory agencies, and the need for ever increasing corporate profits. While potential presidential candidates within the United States debate whether or not to spread out vaccines, the bigger picture has been monumentally missed. With the exception of Rand Paul, the words “medical freedom” and “vaccines” in the same sentence are like garlic to presidential candidate vampires attempting to suck the lifeblood of attention and money from the American people.
Whether Carson, Clinton, Trump and others are plain ignorant of the issue or are simply in the pocket of pharmaceutical donors, none will touch the topic of mandatory vaccinations and medical freedom. Instead, candidates without backbones are choosing rather to focus on the less important, and less controversial, topic of vaccine timing. Allowing a person the choice to spread out their vaccines is not medical choice nor medical freedom. True choice and freedom allows the person to decide whether they want a vaccination or not. Is it too much to hope for any candidate to speak of the CDC whistle blower’s admission or even acknowledge the existence of Dr. William Thompson?
The Fall of Mandatory Vaccination
For every attempt to remove a fundamental right, there are answers and solutions. The California public is attempting to repeal SB277 though the proper political channels with referendum that has over 300,000 signatures. The presidential candidate mouthpieces attempting to win the public’s favor and money are in a position to be leveraged to force the debate around medical freedom and medical choice. For candidates who have historically shown that they will say anything while campaigning for president, it would be advantageous to use their pandering and platform to inject medical freedom, informed consent, and the long held (currently ignored) medical concept of do no harm into the debate.
Those fighting for medical freedom stand beside the spirits of our great grandparents in the United States. Mandatory vaccination has been tried before in a similar way and with similar resistance from the public. After California passed a “compulsory vaccination” law for all school children in the early 1900's, the public was activated in resistance as headlines reported on the controversy. When a case came before Santa Cruz, California Superior Judge Lucas F. Smith, he delivered the opinion of the court that the compulsory vaccination law is unconstitutional in that it is discriminatory. His commentary on the ruling was the following:
“It is no answer to this penal statute to say, as the counsel for the state board of health contends, that parents who do not believe in vaccination can send their children to private schools and thus avoid the consequences of the penal statute. It is an old and fundamental principle of justice that all criminal laws should operate alike upon all classes of people, whether they be rich or poor. A rich man could send his children to a private school as suggested by the attorney for the state board of health, and thus avoid being arrested and punished under said penal statute; but should the poor man be punished as a criminal because he is unable to send his children to a private school and does not believe in vaccination, and for that reason his children are barred from attending public schools? Such an interpretation of the two statutes would work as a great injustice to a large class of people.”
Judge Smith’s ruling and interpretation of the compulsory vaccination law at the time can also be doubly applied to the special needs children of the present. Special needs children require Individual Educations Programs (IEP) and uniquely trained and qualified staff to carry them out. Many parents do not have the option to homeschool their special needs child because the parent(s) do not possess the skill set, training, or funds required to carry out the IEPs.
History will look back, again, in the years to come and show that the push for mandatory vaccination was a poorly thought out idea. In addition, it will serve as political suicide for any politician signing on to it. The current push to force vaccinate will be remembered as the major wake up call for a U.S. public who has been historically apathetic and overly trusting of their medical establishments and caregivers. At stake in this current push for mandatory vaccination is the public trust and integrity of not only the medical community, but the local educational boards and staff that sit by silently as parents fight in isolation to keep the state out of their child’s personal health decisions.
For those doing their research, a clear push can be seen, nationally and internationally, being quarterbacked by pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyist, purchased regulatory agencies, and the need for ever increasing corporate profits. While potential presidential candidates within the United States debate whether or not to spread out vaccines, the bigger picture has been monumentally missed. With the exception of Rand Paul, the words “medical freedom” and “vaccines” in the same sentence are like garlic to presidential candidate vampires attempting to suck the lifeblood of attention and money from the American people.
Whether Carson, Clinton, Trump and others are plain ignorant of the issue or are simply in the pocket of pharmaceutical donors, none will touch the topic of mandatory vaccinations and medical freedom. Instead, candidates without backbones are choosing rather to focus on the less important, and less controversial, topic of vaccine timing. Allowing a person the choice to spread out their vaccines is not medical choice nor medical freedom. True choice and freedom allows the person to decide whether they want a vaccination or not. Is it too much to hope for any candidate to speak of the CDC whistle blower’s admission or even acknowledge the existence of Dr. William Thompson?
The Fall of Mandatory Vaccination
For every attempt to remove a fundamental right, there are answers and solutions. The California public is attempting to repeal SB277 though the proper political channels with referendum that has over 300,000 signatures. The presidential candidate mouthpieces attempting to win the public’s favor and money are in a position to be leveraged to force the debate around medical freedom and medical choice. For candidates who have historically shown that they will say anything while campaigning for president, it would be advantageous to use their pandering and platform to inject medical freedom, informed consent, and the long held (currently ignored) medical concept of do no harm into the debate.
Those fighting for medical freedom stand beside the spirits of our great grandparents in the United States. Mandatory vaccination has been tried before in a similar way and with similar resistance from the public. After California passed a “compulsory vaccination” law for all school children in the early 1900's, the public was activated in resistance as headlines reported on the controversy. When a case came before Santa Cruz, California Superior Judge Lucas F. Smith, he delivered the opinion of the court that the compulsory vaccination law is unconstitutional in that it is discriminatory. His commentary on the ruling was the following:
“It is no answer to this penal statute to say, as the counsel for the state board of health contends, that parents who do not believe in vaccination can send their children to private schools and thus avoid the consequences of the penal statute. It is an old and fundamental principle of justice that all criminal laws should operate alike upon all classes of people, whether they be rich or poor. A rich man could send his children to a private school as suggested by the attorney for the state board of health, and thus avoid being arrested and punished under said penal statute; but should the poor man be punished as a criminal because he is unable to send his children to a private school and does not believe in vaccination, and for that reason his children are barred from attending public schools? Such an interpretation of the two statutes would work as a great injustice to a large class of people.”
Judge Smith’s ruling and interpretation of the compulsory vaccination law at the time can also be doubly applied to the special needs children of the present. Special needs children require Individual Educations Programs (IEP) and uniquely trained and qualified staff to carry them out. Many parents do not have the option to homeschool their special needs child because the parent(s) do not possess the skill set, training, or funds required to carry out the IEPs.
History will look back, again, in the years to come and show that the push for mandatory vaccination was a poorly thought out idea. In addition, it will serve as political suicide for any politician signing on to it. The current push to force vaccinate will be remembered as the major wake up call for a U.S. public who has been historically apathetic and overly trusting of their medical establishments and caregivers. At stake in this current push for mandatory vaccination is the public trust and integrity of not only the medical community, but the local educational boards and staff that sit by silently as parents fight in isolation to keep the state out of their child’s personal health decisions.
Newspaper clipping from The Ogden standard, April 02, 1910.
|
|
|
RSS Feed