Mothering Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In a state that already has a teeny tiny exemption rate, the forced vaxxers are pushing forward again trying to remove religious exemptions.

If you can, attend and testify at the Joint Commission on Health Subcommittee Meeting:

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1 p.m.
General Assembly Building - Meeting Room A
201 N 9th St,
Richmond, VA 23219

You can also write to the committee members. http://jchc.virginia.gov/members.asp

I can update if NVIC puts out an announcement. They usually provide good talking points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
All about saving lives?

Somehow, I don't think so.

Perhaps it is about the HPV vaccine again. I believe that more people opt out of that one and it is probably hurting Merck's bottom line.

This is a bit old, but obviously Virginia parents were NOT going along with the mandate. Removing the religious exemption could fix that. And parents who are just using it against one vaccine aren't plugged into the vaccine legislation network and will probably be hard to activate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Do you have a source?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
This bit is interesting. It isn't, for the moment at least, about the HPV vaccine. This language was added at the time the vaccine was mandated:
Because the human papillomavirus is not communicable in a school setting, a parent or guardian, at the parent's or guardian's sole discretion, may elect for the parent's or guardian's child not to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine, after having reviewed materials describing the link between the human papillomavirus and cervical cancer approved for such use by the Board.
and it isn't being struck off.

so they'll be forcing the rest of the vaccines but not HPV unless they change the language. This could easily be done, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
I found this http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+HB1342

The bill started back in January. Turquesa does have the right date and location for the next meeting.
Am I missing something? (Very possible, I just skimmed).

E. This section shall not diminish the responsibility of any physician or other person to maintain accurate patient immunization data or the responsibility of any parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to cause a child to be immunized in accordance with the provisions of § 32.1-46. Further, this section shall not be construed to require the immunization of any person who objects thereto on the grounds that the administration of immunizing agents conflicts with his religious tenets or practices, or any person for whom administration of immunizing agents would be detrimental to his health.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
It is this section:
D. The provisions of this section shall not apply if: a vaccine is medically contraindicated.
1. The parent or guardian of the child objects thereto on the grounds that the administration of immunizing agents conflicts with his religious tenets or practices, unless an emergency or epidemic of disease has been declared by the Board;
This stuff is very confusing. I remember being in a state of constant muddle in 2012 when we were battling in Vermont. They kept changing stuff. And the wording is hard to follow.

You have to go back and look at the section in the bill-the strike-out didn't come through with my cut and paste and I'm not sure it is an option for quoting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
(Forced) Vax (Compliance) Advocacy is advertising it on their Facebook page and encouraging its astroturf army to show up. For some weird reason, however, their FB page isn't showing up in my search engine. It was as of this morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
News coverage of the hearing: http://www.nbc29.com/story/32679286/virginia-state-lawmakers-weigh-forced-immunizations

Kudos to this media outlet for accurately referring to force.

As usual, protesters showed up en masse, (note the standing ovation for Barbara and all of the red shirts). I strongly suspect that they had to dig for their one forced vax spokesperson, leaving me to wonder who the real fringe group is.
I think pro-vaccine people who actually want to show up at legislative hearings to insist that schools exclude children are few and far between. There may be a fair number of people who LIKE the concept, but to actually show up and lobby for it? Nah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I think pro-vaccine people who actually want to show up at legislative hearings to insist that schools exclude children are few and far between. There may be a fair number of people who LIKE the concept, but to actually show up and lobby for it? Nah.
The one person they interviewed demands that they "tighten" the religious exemption, but I've seen her around social media and know that this statement is disingenuous. "Tightening" is just an incremental strategy to reach the all-out forced-vax goal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
The one person they interviewed demands that they "tighten" the religious exemption, but I've seen her around social media and know that this statement is disingenuous. "Tightening" is just an incremental strategy to reach the all-out forced-vax goal.
Tightening, of course, implies that the exemption is all loosey-goosey and needs repair.

And disingenous is the forced vaccine agenda folks middle name. Consider, for example, the very complex meanings they assign to the word "force".
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,825 Posts
Dr. Suzanne Humphries provided written testimony in Virginia. Several people here have been unable, for one reason or another, to watch the Dr. Humphries video. Here we have an actual document that people can read and discuss. https://suzannehumphriestestimonyva.wordpress.com/

The children who experience measles disease naturally, are immune for life. The same is NOT true for those who get vaccinated. Between two and 10 percent of vaccinees don’t respond to measles vaccines at all, and those who do, will have at most, 20-30 years of immunity. This is a verified fact in the medical literature. Here is a link to an article, written by a well known and respected scientist from Mayo clinic discussing this fact:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22196079
Multiple studies demonstrate that 2–10% of those immunized with two doses of measles vaccine fail to develop protective antibody levels, and that immunity can wane over time and result in infection (so-called secondary vaccine failure) when the individual is exposed to measles.”
Eagerly awaiting some cherry-picking of minor points in an attempt to dismiss her analysis!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,078 Posts
Glad you posted this, I have been meaning to do this for a few days, but forgot.

I doubt the vaccine supporters here will comment on its contents unless one of the "skeptic" websites have made an attempt to dismiss her analysis. I hope the Virginia Legislature Joint Commission on Healthcare have read it because otherwise they will believe the misinformation spouted by Stephen Weiss and will remain in ignorance like most all other politicians, lawmakers, judges, healthcare professionals etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,075 Posts
Dr. Suzanne Humphries provided written testimony in Virginia. Several people here have been unable, for one reason or another, to watch the Dr. Humphries video. Here we have an actual document that people can read and discuss. https://suzannehumphriestestimonyva.wordpress.com/



Eagerly awaiting some cherry-picking of minor points in an attempt to dismiss her analysis!
We've discussed that Gregory Poland study before. He said it was misunderstood and taken out of context by non-vaxxers. His position is that we have an excellent vaccine, but hopes we can make a better one because of how unusually contagious measles is and because people who are immunocompromised cannot receive it because it is a live virus vaccine.

The point in my editorial was that we might be able to solve all those problems by developing an even better vaccine. But that’s what people misunderstand. Both sides hear what they want to hear, and when I’m writing to scientific community, I think some of the nuances could be misinterpreted by laypeople or by people with an agenda. They think, “Hey, here’s somebody who’s saying it’s not good vaccine” because that’s what they want to hear.

On the one hand, we have the most transmissible disease known in humans, and on the other hand we have an excellent vaccine – which is not a perfect vaccine – and we don’t induce immunity in somewhere between 2 to 5 percent of the people who receive it. When everybody is vaccinated, the only cases you’ll see are those in cases who are immunized, though you’ll see very few cases compared to a population that doesn’t have high levels of herd immunity. This is counterintuitive, and people misunderstand it. For any other disease, that’s an out-of-the-ballpark, grand slam vaccine, but with measles, it’s not because of the high transmissibility and the high level of herd immunity needed.

The measles vaccine has dramatically decreased cases because of the lower number that occur. The risk of taking the vaccine itself would be, if it was administered properly, maybe about a one in million chance of anaphylaxis. Otherwise there really aren’t life-threatening issues or complications associated with the vaccine. On the contrary side, should you develop measles, 1 in 1,000 develop encephalitis. During the outbreak in 1989-91, 3 out of 1000 kids died. It’s not for everybody a benign disease. For many children, it will be benign, but you can’t predict that, nor can you predict who they are going to expose, who may have more serious complications.

The way I often conclude my conversation with patients is that there are no risk-free decisions. The observed risk of autism due to MMR is zero. The risk of anaphylaxis is 1 in a million. The risk of any other life-threatening illness has got to be so small, maybe one in 10 million, that we can’t detect it. Now let’s look at the measles. If we’re wise, we always the lower risk with the higher benefit, because that’s what a rational person would do, enhancing their benefits while minimizing their risks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahae...ccine-researcher-gregory-poland/#777b589316d4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
From Dr. Humphries' testimony linked above:

The first group in the slide on “pockets of susceptibility” is one that I would like to draw your attention to: the medically exempt. We are used to thinking of these individuals as the vulnerable cancer patients. However, cancer patients only have their immune systems shut off for short periods of time during, for example, chemotherapy or radiation therapy and after that therapy is completed become candidates for routine vaccination under CDC vaccine recommendations.
Dr. Humphries then talks about those people (approx. 2% of the pop.) who take drugs known as "biologics" and how they cannot tolerate live virus vaccines. In Virginia alone this would amount to over 160,000 people.

Because TNF alpha inhibiting drugs cripple the recipients’ immune systems, the recipients don’t resist infections with their front line defenses and can also become “super-spreaders”, efficient transmitters of disease by shedding vast amounts of any bacteria, virus or other pathogen multiplying unrestrained in their bodies.
Factor in the 2-10% of vaccinated people that are non-responders to the vaccine, plus all the vaccinated adults with waning immunity and you have a far larger reservoir for disease than the 800 children with vaccine exemptions.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top