STATEMENT FROM DR BOB SEARS RE: CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL
California Bill AB2109 Threatens Vaccine Freedom of Choice
The California Legislature is currently considering a bill that
would require parents to obtain their doctor’s signature on a government
form prior to enrollment in public school if they wish to skip one or
more vaccines for their child. Current law allows
parents to decline vaccines by signing an exemption form at the school –
no doctor’s signature needed. The new law would require “a written
statement signed by a health care practitioner that indicates that the
practitioner provided the parent with information
regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health
risks of specified communicable diseases.”
On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea. It will require
parents to prove that they’ve had an informed discussion with their
physician. Most parents already have such discussions anyway. However,
what gravely concerns me is that some doctors
will refuse to sign this form. I know how doctors think. Many doctors
Contact: Ginger Taylor
Phone: (855) 711-5282
9 A.M. EST,
March 20, 2012
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control have promised to release their most recent autism prevalence numbers sometime “in the spring,” which officially begins today. Most likely the release will give rates from the 2008 report of the Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network on eight-year-old children born in 2000.
Over two years ago the CDC reported autism rates of 1 in 110 in children born in 1998. Early reports indicate that rates for children born in 2000 have risen above 1 in 100. According to sources, the new rates could be announced as early as next week.
Chairman of the Canary Party Mark Blaxill said, “We’ve been waiting for years to get these numbers from the CDC, but most of all we’ve been waiting for health authorities to face the reality of the American autism epidemic. Something terrible has happened to a generation of American children and the CDC refuses to declare autism a public health emergency.”
In order to assess the new report, the Canary Party urges the public to consider the following:
• These statistics are many years behind the current situation. Since the onset of autism begins in infancy, before three years of age, these statistics are effectively a decade old.
• Utah, one of the ADDM reporting sites, has already published their results for the 2000 birth year. The risk for autism in eight-year-olds born in Utah in 2000 was 1 in 77. This is a 73% increase from Utah’s 2002 ADDM statistics, which showed a rate of 1 in 133 for children born in 1994.
• Autism was reported as a new condition in American children born in the 1930s. For many years reported U.S. autism rates were low, not much higher than 1 in 10,000. Starting with children born around 1990, autism rates began exploding. Some authorities attribute this increase to the inclusion of Asperger’s syndrome in official diagnostic criteria, but Asperger’s syndrome only makes up a modest portion of total autism cases and cannot explain such sudden and large increases.
• The ADDM Network has never reported breakdowns within the autism spectrum, making comparisons to past prevalence reports difficult. Without the ability to separate rates of Asperger’s syndrome from other autism categories, the CDC has failed to address the impact of Asperger’s syndrome on autism time trends.
• The ADDM Network reporting sites have also changed frequently, making comparisons even with the CDC’s own autism reports difficult. High prevalence sites like New Jersey were removed from the ADDM Network and lower prevalence states like Florida were added. These shifts make the increases appear less alarming than they truly are. Nevertheless the last CDC report showed an increase of 57% in just four years.
• The ADDM Network reports begin with children born in 1992, so they miss the crucial inflection point in autism rates around 1990. Yet the CDC’s own statistics from New Jersey, an early ADDM site, show rates for autistic disorder rising from ZERO in the 1988-89 birth years to 1 in 128 by 1993.
The only plausible explanation for these rapid increases is a change in the environment affecting millions of American children. A recent study on California twins — the largest autism twin study ever conducted — reported that the environment explained over 60% of autism causation, and by some estimates over 90%.
The Canary Party calls for all Americans to watch for the new autism rates and demand action from public health authorities.
There is no disputing it. The Greater Good is a film that is making an impact.
Not many films have school board presidents writing open letters urging other parents to watch it and "to begin the discussion within their own families about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinations." On Friday, Greg Marvel of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District did just that.
SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, California 94526
Board of Education
(925) 552-2933 • FAX (925) 838-3147 www.srvusd.net
March 16, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Vaccinations and the Film “The Greater Good”
My name is Greg Marvel, and I am currently the President of the Board of Education for the San Ramon Unified School District. I am serving my third term on the Board. In addition, I have an extensive background in educational administration, having served in various executive and Assistant CEO capacities in various K-12 and higher education institutions. I retired as a Vice Chancellor from a large college system and now am President of a consulting firm with over 100 school districts as clients. The comments in this letter are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the rest of the Board of Education or my school district.
I recently had the opportunity to view the firm “The Greater Good” and found it to be very thought provoking. I am a strong believer in the use of vaccines. However, I also believe in informed consent for all parents. The tragic examples of the unintended consequences of vaccines on some of our children are graphically portrayed in this film. However, it presents a balanced argument, with national experts advocating for universal vaccination, while others in the film present cautionary arguments.
I have personal experiences with the potential adverse impacts of vaccinations on young children. My daughter was given her recommended series of vaccinations as a baby and small child. Each time, she became seriously ill for several days. We were assured that for some children that was normal. No one ever outlined the potential long-term and permanent damage that some children experience from vaccination routines. Thankfully, the impact on our daughter did appear to be temporary and she went on to graduate with honors from high school, UC Berkeley and Columbia University Law School. However, this film clearly outlines examples where the consequences were much more serious and long-term.
Parents should be encouraged to examine all the issues surrounding vaccinations and make an informed decision about what is best for their children. For many if not most parents, the decision to proceed will prove to be the right one. However, it is important that parents fully investigate and understand the benefits and the risks associated with the current recommended vaccinations and their opt out rights under their respective “mandatory” state vaccination laws.
I see this film as a starting point for each viewer to begin the discussion within their own families about the benefits and risks associated with vaccinations, and thus strongly recommend that every parent watch this film.
Greg A. Marvel
President, Board of Education
The documentary's look into the problems in vaccination today is reasoned, fair and powerful, and despite establishment attempts to keep it out of major film festivals and off the radar of the American people, it is getting out there any way. It started with smaller festivals, then individuals began screenning it for friends, then Mercola and Natural News got it out there, and now Current TV will be running it this week.
It will be showing on Current TV this Friday, March 24th, at 1pm Eastern, and will be followed by a live chat eith the producers.
"Did vaccinations give Jordan Autism, or did they merely aggravate a pre-existing condition? This and other tough questions are being debated around the world. "The Greater Good" explores the cultural intersections where parenting meets modern medicine and individual rights collide with politics.
"The Greater Good" premieres March 24, 2012, at 1p.m. EST on Current TV. Join the producers of the film back here for a live online chat when the film premiers at Current.com/GreaterGood."
We encourage parents of vaccine injured children to join the discussion after the film and share your experiences with others.
The most egregious state bill in the pharma attempt to circumvent parents to vaccinate children directly (and illegally) was killed in committee today in Maryland.
HB 561 would have allowed pharmacists to vaccinate children as young as nine years old with any FDA approved vaccine without parental consent. This, of course violates the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which requires parents of a minor be given CDC approved materials on the benefits and risks of the vaccine before a child can be vaccinated, as does the recently passed AB 499 in California. Similar legislation has also been introduced in New York.
The bill was sponsored by:
- Delegate James W. Hubbard, District 23A
- Delegate Robert A. Costa, District 33B
- Delegate Bonnie Cullison, District 19
- Delegate Donald B. Elliott, District 4B
- Delegate Susan W. Krebs, District 9B
- Delegate Nathaniel T. Oaks, District 41
- Delegate Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk, District 21
- Delegate Shawn Z. Tarrant, District 40
- Delegate Veronica Turner, District 26
We encourage Marylanders to contact these representatives and express their concern over this cynical attempt to improve vaccine sales by cutting parents out of health decisions for children, violating parental rights and violating federal law.
Request that Assemblyman Pan Withdraw AB2109
Written by The Canary Party
Thursday, 15 March 2012 00:00
California State Assemblyperson Richard Pan
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0005
Tel: (916) 319-2005
Fax: (916) 319-2105
Sacramento State University
Modoc Hall, Suite 1009
3020 State University Drive East
Sacramento, CA 95819
Tel: (916) 452-0505
Fax: (916) 452-5525
Dear Assemblyperson Pan,
I represent the California members of the Canary Party, a political action committee dedicated to health freedom and choice in medicine.
Our members vehemently oppose AB2109.
AB2109 would require parents who wish to exercise their philosophical exemption rights to first consult with a medical practitioner. This is an unnecessary intrusion into the rights of parents.
Parents currently have the option of the Philosophical Exemption Law (also referred to as the Personal Belief Exemption), which ensures they do not have to vaccinate their children if it is against "their personally held beliefs". Personally held beliefs include religious and spiritual beliefs, as well as conscientious and moral beliefs.
The state does not have the right to interfere with, question, add obstacles to, or regulate a closely held belief that is protected by law.
Furthermore, requiring parents to seek out and pay for a consultation with a medical practitioner is an unfair and unnecessary burden to families. Many families see alternative practitioners such as Naturopaths, Homeopaths, Chiropractors and Acupuncturists, who are not permitted to sign these forms under the rules of AB2109. Thus, these parents would be required to pay to see medical practitioners that they have already chosen not to use. This is an offensive and costly intrusion into their lives, and a violation of their right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions.
This law will create an unfair financial burden to families at a time when few can afford any additional expenses. Numerous resources exist regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines, and about infectious diseases, and are readably available in libraries and on the internet at no cost. Parents should not be forced to seek out additional and unnecessary medical coercion forced upon them by the state.
In closing, we believe this bill is a tactic being initiated by pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists, who have made substantial contributions to CA state legislators, to increase their profits without regard for the law, parental rights, parental beliefs, or the health and welfare of California’s children.
We respectfully request that you immediately withdraw AB2109.
California State Coordinator - Canary Party