The California Legislature has virtually eliminated medical exemptions for mandatory vaccine schedules. Subsequently, I met with a group of women, including three registered nurses and the daughter of a physician, all of whom have suffered vaccine injuries, either directly themselves or by way of their children. Their pain and sorrow was heartbreaking.
Unfortunately, our government and the medical establishment has been trying to delegitimize the pain of people who have suffered irreversible trauma and injury as a result of negative reactions to vaccines, despite the fact that the federal vaccine injury court has paid out over $4 billion. In light of the fact that people can and do react negatively to vaccines, it makes one wonder why politicians would undermine the doctor-patient relationship by going after the physicians who prescribe the exemption. Why force parents, who already have a vaccine-injured child, to subject the rest of their kids to similar injuries based on their shared genetic predisposition?
Our oldest daughter was born with severe allergies. To this day, she never has been cleared to receive the Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine. Yet doctors do not bother to routinely test children for allergies before they administer vaccines. Why is that?
Katy Grimes, editor of The California Globe, covered the protests of mothers and children in Sacramento when the Legislature ram-rodded this bill through to the governor’s desk. She met the mothers of vaccine-injured children and couldn’t believe how callous our politicians were with respect to the pain these families have had to endure. In a nutshell, a significant number of these mothers had children who were vaccine-injured and, therefore, due to genetic concerns, they want an exemption option to protect the rest of their family. Instead, these concerned mothers were ignored, insulted and marginalized.
I have done more than a dozen radio interviews on the subject of vaccines, along with the subject of diminishing herd immunity, with people on both sides of the debate. Herd immunity, by the way, posits that society risks disease outbreaks if too many parents avoid having their children immunized as a percentage of the at-large population.
Well, I am here to tell you the left can’t have it both ways. They can’t demand the right to kill a child via full-term abortion with the chant, “my body, my choice” while denying the same right of mothers to protect the life and well-being of their child, i.e., “my child, my choice.” Neither can they protect the squalid homeless camps (homelessness is not a crime, they say) that are producing diseases we haven’t seen since the Middle Ages, including typhus, leprosy and the plague. That is, if homelessness, despite subsequent disease outbreaks, is not a crime, then protecting the lives and well-being of children shouldn’t be considered a crime either.
I believe our government somehow considers the prevalence of vaccine injuries as an acceptable risk and cost in comparison to the disease outbreaks of having no vaccines. Whereas in other areas of exposure, no risk whatsoever is tolerated with respect to many other products and drugs, including, for example, the risks and subsequent liability associated with tobacco and now vaping. Second, the combination of the profits involved in the manufacture of vaccines combined with the no-fault litigation payout paradigm means that the drug manufacturers actually avoid risk by ignoring the issue. Finally, nanny state-minded politicians and the bureaucrats at the CDC are simply out of control. They recommend upwards of 69 doses of 16 different vaccines, not all of which are medically necessary. They do so out of a so-called abundance of caution. However, instead, society should be raising caution flags in light of the demonstrated potential for harm.