Medical Choice Under Attack as SB277 Passes CA Health CommitteeJefferey Jaxen In California, where solutions appear to always remove rights from the citizen and replace them with control, hope for individual freedoms is getting hard to come by. While the state grapples with laughable solutions put forward by Gov. Jerry Brown to end a drought, parents now face the real possibility of forced vaccination for their children attending public school. During the hearing, many of the six senators who voted in favor of the bill used their time to voice pro-vaccine talking points. Yet, not before the Health Committee sat through almost two hours of parents and children giving their individual testimonies on record in opposition. Before the final vote, Committee Chair Senator Ed Hernandez (D) West Covina stated for the record I believe in the science. I believe vaccines are safe and effective. Not to be outdone, Senator Lois Wolk (D) Davis represented the collectivist, herd immunity crowd by stating for the record, Our individual rights arent without limits. You insisting on your right (to not vaccinate) could harm my child or grandchild. For pro-vaccine choice parents who wish to still live in California and maintain their freedom of medical choice, an amendment will be added to allow homeschooling parents to maintain their philosophical exemption. The bill now will be heard by the Senate Education Committee, followed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. From there, it faces the Assembly before Gov. Jerry Brown decides to sign away parental rights to exemptions. ABC NBC: Integrity Sold In what can only be considered planned coincidence, roughly one hour after SB-277 was voted on, NBCs Law and Order SVU ran its new episode titled Granting Immunity. To honor April as National Autism Awareness Month, the episode features a measles outbreak in a California school due to a hippie dippy mom that never vaccinated her kids. No stranger to taking the wrong side of controversy, it appears NBC is looking to follow in the footsteps of ABCs Jimmy Kimmel to attack parents who still want medical choice. In between pharmaceutical ad commercials from Flonase and Allegra, it was clear that this was behavior placement aimed to attack thinking, pro-vaccine choice parents. Spoiler alert! After being called Typhoid Trudy and Joan of Arc (sarcastically) the pro-vaccine choice mother is convicted on second degree reckless endangerment. During her trial, the defense cites the Centers for Disease Control by saying that the side effects from the MMR vaccine are statistically insignificant mostly mild and one in a million. All of these statements are in serious question now that the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William H Thompson, has released his statement admitting fraud regarding his work during official government MMR vaccine research and its link to increased autism. Excitotoxicity What will never be mentioned in any television news debate, sitcom, or Senate hearing is the warnings listed the vaccine insert, the vaccine makers and doctors government granted immunity from any damages caused by the vaccines, violation of the Nuremberg Codes, other countries halting the vaccines due to damages, what the toxic vaccine ingredients do to the human brain, or that there are no trials that have shown vaccine safety for children, adults, and pregnant women. These questions pull back the curtain and lead to real debate and questions outside the appeal to emotion; televisions only tool to form your opinions. For the medical community watching debates or shows like Law and Order, it is important to look past your pharmaceutical-sponsored medical training. Doctors with major credibility have continually laid out the exact mechanisms of action and the entire neuropathology of vaccine adjuvant damage in children and adults. There is no longer an excuse to stay ignorant. They say that in the age of information, ignorance is a choice. However, as a practicing doctor or nurse actively injecting children and adults, your ignorance is a punishable crime under international law Nuremberg Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. This principle could be paraphrased as follows: It is not an acceptable excuse to say I was just following my superiors orders'. References: Jefferey Jaxen is an independent journalist, writer, and researcher. Focusing on personal empowerment and alternative health, his work reveals a sharp eye to capture the moment in these rapidly changing times. His personal page is located at JeffereyJaxen.com, where this first appeared. 