On May 9, 2016, an event occurred that is unheard of in modern politics.
A State Senator from California saw a group of taxpayers outside of his office, and ran out a back door, down a stairwell, and fled on foot down the street away from the State Capitol.
CA State Senator Pan, author of CA’s mandatory vaccination bill SB277, thus prevented what could have been a meaningful exchange with CA resident and movie producer Del Bigtree.
After all, Senator Pan could have taken the opportunity to explain why, knowing that CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson had revealed that CDC omitted results from a key study in 2004 showing an association between vaccines an autism, he went ahead and introduced a bill mandating vaccination for CA’s 6.2 million students.
Perhaps Senator Pan could have explained to Del and other constituents why he said that water was the most dangerous ingredient in vaccines while ignoring all of the published science on the toxicity of mercury, and aluminum. According to Pan, water is more dangerous than formaldehyde. Senator Pan’s message is a punch in the face of logic – he is a medical doctor and ought to know better.
A day before he fled the state capitol building, Del had challenged Pan to a debate.
One has to wonder – if your state is considering taking away philosophical exemptions, religious exemptions, and infringing on medical exemptions – and you wish to discuss the issue with your State Senator – will they run away from you, too?
Why Pan Ran
Residents of CA had called for a recall of Senator Pan after they learned that he had received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from drug companies. Read a petition here
We call on California State Senator, Dr. Richard Pan to resign from his position due to his vested interests in profiting from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and literally dozens of pharmaceutical companies, and the conflict of interest this causes.
It’s a fair question to ask if Pan won’t talk w/the voters of California, but will accept donations from drug companies, whose interest does he truly represent?
And it’s fair enough for you to ask of your State representatives whether they have received any campaign contributions from drug companies.
In Pennsylvania, the Department of State hosts a website by which contributors to Legislator and Representatives’ campaigns can be searched.
Don’t know who your Legislator or Representative are? You can search this site first.
No state representative accepting campaign funds from drug companies that manufacture vaccines should introduce any bill making those products mandatory. To do so represents a breach of trust with the public a serious conflict of interest. They are trading our risk of harm for their political career. And they must be found, and held accountable. Comment below if your state representatives in PA are found to accept money from Merck or GlaxoSmithKline. Then search their voting record.
Let’s see how many Senator Pans there are in Harrisburg.
I wonder if they will run when we go to visit them?
The period for public comment on proposed changes to PA vaccination regulations ended on May 9th. It’s time to contact your legislators and demand that they fight against these changes! Read the proposed changes here.
Here are my public comments on the pending changes in regulation, submitted prior to the deadline (sent May 3, 2016). The subject line was:
“Pending PA Vaccine policy changes and non-active Bills”
To my representatives in the Government in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
I submit these to you for your consideration and as Public Commentary.
I am writing with deep concerns over the current proposed changes in the Department of Health (DOH) regulation concerning vaccines. Federal and international law and standards since the Nuremberg trials have made it clear that each patient must be afforded informed consent for any medical procedure. The proposed move to reduce the time for vaccine compliance is very disturbing, as it reduces the amount of time that a parent can take to conduct sufficient checking for accuracy and thoroughness of the information provided by their doctors. Clearly this change is designed to reduce the amount of time available for doctors to discuss vaccine safety with patients, follow up on calls, schedule consultations, and perform their own inquiries, and will thereby restrict some patients to access to information they need to make informed choices about medical procedures.
Many doctors and other health care workers already fail to provide all of the information necessary to parents to make informed decision about the risk of specific vaccines to their children. I am told by pediatricians that they are under an enormous amount of pressure to reduce each office visit to seven minutes – hardly enough time to answer questions from patients seeking full information. For example, I recently called my child’s doctor’s office re: the HPV vaccine to inquire on safety, given the reports of large numbers of deaths and injury due to adverse reactions to the vaccine. The safety profile on HPV vaccine has been drawn into question – so much so that the nation of Japan has refused to allow its use in practice there.
I was told by the nurse that she was “required by law” to tell me that HPV vaccine was very safe, but she gave no detail on the adverse reaction. When I quoted her statement “required by law”, she denied saying it. However, when I spoke with the doctor, he also said that the risk of any adverse event was very small, but could not go into any detail on the types of adverse events. I requested the vaccine insert, which he said he would send. It came to me an in a hand-written, unmarked envelope with no return address, and the insert listed a few minor possible side effects. The insert also contained the following: “For information on additional potential adverse events, consult with your doctor”. When patients are put into a Catch-22 situation, how can we be expected to trust our healthcare providers?
Patients must have the right to make fully informed decisions about the medical procedures to which they decide to subject their children and themselves. The efficacy of HPV vaccine is also very much in question, given that the vaccine only protects against some of type of HPV. Studies have shown that rarer, potentially more dangerous types of HPV can replace those removed due to partial vaccination. This could result in a higher rate of HPV-related cancers. The studies include one by Guo et al, (2015), which found type replacement, as well as a study conducted by CDC (Markowitz et al., 2016), which found no change in overall HPV infection rates before and after HPV vaccination. The CDC study authors incorrectly concluded that no type replacement had occurred, and I have pointed out this error in interpretation to the authors. These studies have led to other states dropping proposed mandatory HPV vaccination, including Maryland.
HPV vaccine is now known to cause early ovarian failure – i.e., to induce menopause – in young females, who consequently become sterile. It is clearly not a safe vaccine, and yet UPMC’s nurses and doctors continue to push it on Pennsylvanians. What else do we not know about adverse events from vaccines? I have attached a study on HPV adverse events that concludes that 1 in 10 girls are harmed.
The proposed changes would also force parents to provide evidence of chickenpox immunity from a medical professional. This is not in keeping with the principle of freedom of choice, and informed consent. If a parent has decided, after due consideration of the risks of vaccination, to forego chickenpox vaccination, to avoid unwanted adverse events and side effects, it is the right of the parent to make the decision to forego chicken pox vaccination. The problem with singling out a single vaccine is that no scientific studies has been done on most individual vaccines that support the conclusion offered by the CDC that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. In fact, of the six vaccines for which studies do exist, there is in fact preliminary scientific evidence in support of association. For 6/12 vaccines given before the age of 7, no studies have been conducted on possible association with autism, and thus the overarching conclusion that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” is, in reality, not based on any scientific evidence.
CDC called for an end to studies of possible association of vaccines and autism after a handful of studies were conducted in the mid-to-late 2000’s. One of those studies, Destefano et al. (2004), is now subject to investigation by CDC for possible fraud due to the fact that the authors of the study arbitrarily and intentionally omitted two sets of results showing positive association between the MMR vaccine, and autism.
Evidence of this alleged fraud has been entered in the US Congressional Record by Rep. William Posey (FL), and is the subject of the documentary “Vaxxed”, currently being screened around the country, which I urge you to screen with your colleagues.
Another proposed change would be the addition of a meningococcal vaccine requirement for students entering the 12th grade. One problem with mandatory vaccination is that if some people have a predisposed genetic risk of adverse events due to any specific vaccine, mandatory vaccination compels them with certainty to suffer that fate. While few medical procedures are 100% risk-free, the biological nature of the match between a given family’s protein sequences and the sequences in adjuvanted vaccines guarantees autoimmune disorders of all types. Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) can occur.
Taken from a population view, the adverse event looks rare (cited as 1 in million at CDC website). However, if one has a sibling or parent who has already suffered an allergic reaction to a vaccine, should they not have the right to refuse subjecting themselves to the same fate? A spate of instances of life-long debilitating narcolepsy cause in some families GSK’s swine flu vaccine in Europe has led to GlaxoSmithKline settling with families for millions of Euros. No cases were found due to the swine flu vaccine offered by Novartis. While public health policies, laws and mandates effect everyone, personal risk is personal, and we ought not want any vaccine mandate that could condemn an unwitting minority in the population to life-threatening and disabling adverse events.
People ought to have the chance to decline vaccination based on first principles of ethics (sanctity of self), unless there is an immediate and pressing public health emergency. No vaccine manufacturer can be held liable for adverse events in the US, even when Federal compensation is refused.
Another proposed set of changes is to require pertussis vaccine for kindergarten admission, remove separate listing for vaccines and only show combinations (MMR, TDaP). Some, and perhaps most, people will do fine with combined vaccines. However, individual vaccines spaced out over time may reduce the severity of individual adverse reactions. Measles is not a deadly disease. In fact, over the last ten years, there have been zero deaths due to measles, and over 100 deaths due to measles vaccination in the US. Because Pharma is not held responsible, there is no incentive for them to find out why. For other drugs, FDA requires randomized, prospective clinical trials after animal safety studies. The types of studies that CDC relies on are retrospective, or “ecological” studies, and CDC has a history of re-analyzing the data in their studies if a positive association is found, and re-analyzing the data until an association goes away.
This is not a solid basis for health care policies that are to be applied to millions of Pennsylvanians. We need to move in the other direction, and demand safer vaccines, Pharma accountability, and we need to have real science conducted on adverse events associated with vaccines before any law is passed than condemns millions of our children to the neurotoxins and unsafe epitopes in vaccines. Listing only combination vaccines would preclude parents from making informed choice on individual vaccines, whereas listing individual vaccine options would help guarantee the right to informed consent by allowing parents to opt for single vaccines at a time, and refuse others, considering whatever science is available on the safety and efficacy of each individual vaccine, which is their right.
Here is some extremely relevant text of a message recently delivered to the United Nations by Mary Holland, J.D., Research Scholar, NYU School of Law, who presented at the 25th International Health and Environment Conference (April 26, 2016). The presentation, of which I had the pleasure of witnessing first hand (program attached), was entitled “Vaccination Policies and Human Rights”, and it was received by standing ovation:
“One of the core purposes of the United Nations, set forth in Article 1 of its Charter, is to achieve international cooperation ‘in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.’ So how must countries and the international community respect and encourage human rights for vaccination policies? This is an important question that deserves genuine scrutiny, as it profoundly affects both individual and public health.
Since World War II, the international community has recognized the grave dangers in involuntary scientific and medical experimentation on human subjects. In the aftermath of Nazi medical atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code which stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, stating ‘no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.’ Such a prohibition is now so universally recognized that some courts and scholars have pronounced the right to informed consent in experiments as a matter of customary international law. In other words, it applies everywhere, whether or not a country has specific laws on its books to this effect, as customary norms now prohibit slavery, torture and piracy.
What about informed consent in the area of medical treatment, including preventive medical treatment? What about informed consent to vaccination? This is a controversial issue today in many countries, including the United States.
In 2005, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights on the consensus of 193 countries. The participating countries hoped this Declaration, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would become a set of guiding principles in the challenging field of human rights and medicine. On the issue of consent, the Declaration states that
‘any preventive…medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.’
It further notes that the ‘sole interest of science or society’ does not prevail. Thus, the international community has clearly stated that the default position for vaccination must be recommendations, not compulsion, allowing individuals, for themselves and their minor children, to accept or refuse these preventive medical interventions based on adequate information and without coercion, such as the threat of loss of economic or educational benefits. Informed consent must be the default position because compulsion, on its face, limits the rights to consent, privacy and physical integrity.
To be sure, the Declaration in Article 27 suggests that there may be limitations on these fundamental rights, but these limits must be imposed by law and must be ‘for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ Furthermore, ‘any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.’ So how can we reach such a balance in the area of vaccination?
International human rights courts have developed a test to see if restrictions of fundamental rights are legitimate and lawful. The test studies whether the measure is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate to the risk. The State enacting such restrictions bears the burden of proof that the compulsory medical intervention is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate. Generally, the “strict necessity” element must be the least restrictive alternative to achieve the public health objective, and non-coercive approaches should always be considered first. Thus, the State must show that a less restrictive alternative is not feasible before adopting a highly restrictive one.
In addition to these criteria related to compulsion for vaccines, if a State mandates vaccination, then it has an affirmative obligation to provide an effective remedy for those individuals who may be injured as a result of vaccination.”
The video of Mary Holland’s presentation is available in two part on YouTube:
While in the US, patients may seek compensation in the National Vaccine Compensation Program, no compensation is guaranteed, and they must go through a battle to prove the vaccine caused the injury suffered by their child. Some of these battles can take up to 6 years. What happens when the family has no time to both pursue the justice due to them and take care of their vaccine-injured child? Surely in Pennsylvania we do not want to condemn even a minority of people to lose a loved one, to suffer lifelong disabilities, with the only recourse to fight a fight in a Federal court to see compensation when they could have opted out, which is not guaranteed.
There are a number of pending bills that I would like you to work to see die in committee – they also restrict patients’ right to informed consent, and the scientific basis of the claims of their universal safety are unwarranted. These include
SB 968/ HB 1785, which would mandate advertisement of flu vaccine to residents of personal care homes, where many residents no longer have the capacity for reading, then comprehending the risks involved via logic and reasoning, allowing them to make decisions on informed consent – which they, too are entitled. This is the state doing the marketing in a place of business and in the homes of PA residents, on behalf of Pharma, which is highly questionable.
HB 883 would remove philosophical exemption and restrict religious exemptions. This bill would restrict Pennsylvanians’ options of informed consent, and would represent an assault on our liberties and freedom from harm due to direct action from the state.
SB 696 would remove philosophical exemption. This isolates the assault specific to a person’s individual right to informed consent. Informed consent does not mean that patients must consent after being informed. It means that patients have the right to refuse a medical procedure if they – individually, not the state – has decided given the full information required to make their choice – that the risk to them is not worth the benefit to them. The State ought not intercede with laws that compel individuals to undergo medical procedures at all, especially for those for which (no) proper studies have been conducted that show that the procedure is both safe, and effective.
I also understand that there is some interest in requiring “proof of immunization” for certain vaccines – e..g., chickenpox. I want to let you know that proof of vaccination is not the same as proof of immunization – as we know now due to outbreaks of measles, and now mumps in vaccinated populations, mostly involving previously vaccinated individuals. “Proof of immunization” would require that doctors provide evidence of blood-detected titres of antibodies, which they should, but do not, provide.
With doctors minimizing risks to patients, and medical professionals and lawmakers dependent on CDC information, which has conducted woefully corrupt science on vaccine safety, we must remain diligent and informed on the reality of the risks of vaccines. We can fall into the trap that CDC uses, in which they confuse an absence of evidence (no studies) as evidence of absence (of harm). We must rely on other sources for reliable information, i.e., studies published by independent researchers, and in this way, Pennsylvanians may remain vigilant and careful with the laws and mandates we place on ourselves and the human rights we continue to secure for ourselves and our children.
I urge you therefore to reserve our liberties, our freedoms, and our rights, and to NOT support the proposed changes in the DOH regulations regarding vaccines, and to work to kill the pending bills listed above, in the name of the majority caring for the at-risk minority, and in the name of preserving human rights.
I then urge you to join the growing number of Pennsylvanians and Americans who are demanding answers from CDC. I urge the PA legislators to issue a statement to the Federal Government demanding answers to the questions raised on the state of vaccine safety science revealed by Dr. William Thompson, a whistleblower top epidemiologist at the CDC, who revealed in recorded conversations with Dr. Brian Hooker, that CDC has routinely omitted results showing association of vaccines with autism, specifically the MMR vaccine, and that they routinely manipulated the data analysis via repeated rounds of analysis to make all discovered associations of vaccines with harm “go away”. Dr Thompson has affirmed his position in a statement from his lawyers (attached).
Here are few quotes from Dr. Thompson’s revelations to Dr. Hooker (cc’d):
Thompson: “They don’t really want people to know that this data exists.”
Thompson: “…among the blacks, the ones that were getting vaccinated earlier, were more likely to have autism.”
Thompson: “It appears in the final publication is that race in general is downplayed. Of course it is.”
Thompson: “I actually think the most interesting results are the isolated, ones that don’t have their co morbid conditions. The effect is where you would think it would happen.”
Thompson: “I was just looking at—I was like, oh my God, I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did.”
Thompson: “The higher ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it. In terms of chain of command, I was number four out of five. “
Thompson: “…Literally, everyone else got rid of all their documents, and so the only documents that exist right now from that study are mine.”
Thompson: “There are things that I haven’t even shared with you because I can’t prove it, and that’s what I struggle with. I don’t want to share things with you that I can’t prove, that there aren’t hard records. I am worried that the other four people will collude and say no, that’s not true.”
Thompson: “That’s what I keep seeing again, and again, and again where these senior people just do completely unethical, vile things and no one holds them accountable. “
Thompson: “The reason you don’t see anything else circulating on the study, it was five of us behind closed doors for two years.”
Thompson: “It’s the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper.”
Everything we think we know about the link between vaccines and autism is based on what CDC scientists in the Immunization Safety Office have told us, and these are the same scientist that Dr. Thompson has alleged routinely conducted scientific fraud to hide association with vaccines and autism.
I therefore urge you to not support any impingement or restriction of patient’s human rights, and to enact legislation demanding cleaner vaccines shown to be both safe and effective.
I urge you to please acquire a copy of the book “Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC” to read for yourself the extent of corruption and malfeasance in vaccine safety research at the CDC<that Dr. Thompson revealed to Dr. Hooker. The book is available via or through your local bookseller or public library.
I will be happy to meet with you in person at your earliest convenience to answer any questions about anything I have raised in these comments.
Please contact Del Bigtree, Producer, to schedule a screening of the movie “Vaxxed”. I will be happy to attend such a screening with you and answer any questions you may have.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Guo, Fangjian et al., 2015. Comparison of HPV prevalence between HPV-vaccinated and non-vaccinated young adult women (20–26 years) Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 11: Issue 10, 2015. 11(10):2337-44. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1066948.
Markowitz LE et al., 2016 Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb 22. pii: peds.2015-1968.
james lyons-weiler, phd
Author, CEO, President, Scientist
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)
Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research (World Scientific, 2016)
Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)