Dear Governor Brown: I Am a Pro-Vaccine Parent Who Strongly Opposes SB 277

(A reader posted this thoughtful letter to Governor Jerry Brown to our Facebook page, and we thought it was so good, we wanted to share it with a wider audience. SB 277 has passed through the California State Assembly and today it passed through the Senate.  The bill is on the way to the governor’s office.  We, too, are strongly opposed to SB 277 and wish to do what we can to convince Governor Brown to veto the bill.)

sb 277 aDear Governor Brown,

I am a pro-vaccine parent who strongly opposes SB 277.

My child, now 20, received all of her childhood vaccines, with my informed consent.

Her pediatrician and I decided together to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until puberty, because it addresses a disease that is spread via needles and sex, and she was at almost no risk of coming in contact with it. We based our decision partly on the congressional testimony provided in 1999 by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which stated:

“With hepatitis B vaccine, the case for mandatory immunization with few exemptions is far less persuasive than with smallpox or polio vaccines, which protected against highly lethal or disabling, relatively common, and easily transmissible diseases. An intelligent and conscientious physician might well recommend AGAINST [emphasis is Ms. Carpenter’s] hepatitis B vaccine, especially in newborns, unless a baby is at unusual risk because of an infected mother or household contact or membership in a population in which disease is common . . .  For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100X greater than the risk of hepatitis B . . . . Striking increases in chronic illnesses have occurred in temporal association with an increase in vaccination rates [Illnesses inc. asthma, diabetes, autism, ADHD] . . . . Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination . . . . Hepatitis B vaccine as a cause of sudden infant death has not been ruled out.”

My point here is that my pediatrician and I were able to discuss this information about this vaccine, and its benefits and risks, and make a medical decision based on all the facts, and not on a poorly-thought-out piece of legislation that removes parental choice and informed consent.

sb-277 bI was fortunate to have a pediatrician who was very knowledgeable about pediatric vaccines and their questionable approval process. Not all physicians meet a high standard of understanding the risks weighed against the benefits of CDCs vaccine schedule. This pediatrician also unbundled some of the vaccines which are routinely administered in one injection, so that my daughter’s immune system could better cope with a slower rate of vaccine administration. Additionally, this pediatrician was among the first in the country to recognize the problems with the live polio virus vaccine, and with the DPT whole cell vaccine and its links to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

SB 277 removes parents’ ability to have relationships like this with our children’s pediatricians, relationships that are based on trust and accurate information, instead of on pharmaceutical industry legislative lobbying and profits.

I would like to share my thoughts about the pharmaceutical industry with you and why its reputation is pertinent to my opposition to SB 277. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, out of all the industries that make billions, is probably the most ethically challenged. Paying fraud settlements is simply a part of this industry’s normal business plan. Currently, Merck, the drug company that may stand to benefit the most from passage of mandatory government vaccine laws, is involved in two separate & serious federal fraud cases, involving its MMR vaccine. U.S. v. Merck Co. alleges that Merck “fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].” In Chatom Primary Care v. Merck Co., Merck is accused of fraudulently monopolizing the mumps market. Both cases are continuing through the court system. They are not isolated cases, as far as fraud is concerned, in the pharmaceutical industry; indeed, these two cases are a small part of a larger, disturbing pattern within the industry. This is not an industry that should be lobbying for legislation, like SB 277, that will generate multi-billions for itself. I do not want this industry to be between me and my physicians around the issue of vaccinations.

Additionally, four separate government inquiries have been conducted recently into the goings-on within the vaccine division at CDC, and all four inquiries revealed serious and grave conflicts-of-interest on the part of almost every person who sits on the Boards that make the decisions about which vaccines to approve, when to administer them, and how. The only reason these inquiries were not acted on is because of the power and control of the vaccine industry over our elected legislators and the regulatory agencies that oversee this industry.

sb277-oppositionThe vaccine industry is pushing for even more legislation to remove Americans’ ability to make informed medical decisions, so SB 277 is not where this will end. It is the beginning. An example of this legislation is SB 453, which seeks to mandate psych meds. There are others, not just in California but in other states as well.

Back in 2011, you vetoed SB 105, writing: “. . . I am concerned about the continuing & seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state . . . . I believe parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.” That is exactly how I feel about state-mandated vaccines.

I urge you to veto SB 277 when it comes across your desk. The way to get more children vaccinated in California is to better-regulate the pharmaceutical industry and its vaccine divisions, thus creating a climate of confidence and trust in CDC’s recommendations, NOT in force-vaccinating our children according to a one-size-fits-all CDC schedule that overrides the special and important relationship between a physician and patient.

Thank you,

Linda Carpenter
Petaluma, CA


Sign the petition to Governor Brown to Veto SB 277:  Governor Brown Oppose Vaccine Mandates.

Pin It
This entry was posted in Blogs by Thinking Moms' Revolution, Featured Guest Blog, Linda Carpenter and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Dear Governor Brown: I Am a Pro-Vaccine Parent Who Strongly Opposes SB 277

  1. Lewis Brand says:

    Every child on planet earth should be fully vaccinated against anything that can be vaccinated against, period. Anyone who knows the devastating consequences of not doing so will agree, try getting off your first world, comfortable, hippy dippy high horses and travel to countries round the world that don’t have the access to proper medical services you have and see the results of it with your own you want your children walking round ad mobile disease incubators and spreaders?

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Your very first sentence makes it clear that you have no ability to think rationally about this subject. Even mainstream medicine acknowledges that there are a number of contraindications for EACH vaccine. EVERY SINGLE VACCINE CARRIES A RISK OF ADVERSE REACTION. We could still vaccinate against smallpox and yet we don’t. Why? Because it got to the point that there were many, many more vaccine reactions than there were cases of smallpox. One can and MUST weigh the benefits against the risks. Many vaccines carry minuscule benefits at best. For instance, the FluMist vaccine didn’t work at all the last two years and there is no evidence that the inactivated version works at all in children under two, despite the recommendation that children as young as six months get it. Yet, the demographic MOST urged to get the flu vaccine is children with asthma, and a mainstream study showed that the rate of flu-related hospitalization was THREE TIMES HIGHER in children who were vaccinated. When you have done even a TENTH of the research that we have done, we may consider your opinion. Until then, not a chance.

  2. Melissa says:

    This is a violation of our rights!

  3. cia parker says:

    Even non-Californians can sign this to show support for referendum against SB 277:

  4. Tracy says:

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    I have a feeling it’s going to get a lot worse, before it gets better, but at least we’re moving in the intended direction.

  5. Bill Gates states on the TED talk that the vaccines should reduce the population!
    We know they do. Except that some people get harmed instead of dying.
    Most of these politicians are being told to do these things or lose their jobs or die.
    The secret government is behind it, called the cabal, they lack souls.
    Strongly advise one watches the documentary, free online, called Thrive
    It gives a summary on what if going on and what we can do.
    Another one to watch soon is Bought about Big Pharma and vaccines.
    Vaccines are also being put into the chemtrails.
    I’m an RN and saw one of my sons react to a vaccine but as an NAET practitioner, I was
    able to reverse the vaccine effects but I worry what they are really putting in them.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      PLEASE stop saying that Bill Gates said vaccine would reduce the population. The speech that people refer to was about reducing the INCREASE in population, which means SLOWING DOWN THE RATE OF GROWTH, NOT reducing the population. The more this gets repeated, the less credibility you have. Slowing down an increase does not equal reduction.

      I had a very good experience with NAET. I’m very glad that you were able to reverse his issues.

  6. Num Guy says:

    Sadly, vaccine makers have no incentive to change their ways. They make huge profits but are totally protected from lawsuits because Congress granted them immunity in 1986. Families are paying for the damages vaccines are causing.

    If you want to change this, please sign this petition

    Protect kids, not drug makers!The law is corrupt and immoral.

    Kindly pass this on to everyone you know. Together, hopefully, we can make a difference!

  7. Concerned parent and american says:

    I must admit that I am genuinely confused about the support that this bill has to have made it so far as the governors desk. I can understand the politicians, who follow the money and popular bandwagon, but it is the individual citizens who feel that this is a good idea who confuse me. It is a clear and direct violation of our personal freedom as americans. Where you stand on the vaccine issue should be irrelevant. This is a move expected of a tyrannical dictatorship, not a proud democracy founded on the personal rights of the individual. Should this bill be signed, I can only hope that it would be successfully challenged in court at the earliest opportunity. Bad bills have been enacted before, only to be struck down and shown for what they are in the judicial system. Otherwise I’m not sure just what country I am really living in.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      He just signed it. I too hope that it is struck down quickly by the courts.

      • Boris says:

        I too hope that it is struck down quickly by the courts.

        On what theory? The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Workman, thus demonstrating that West Virginia’s (stricter) mandate is just fine as far as the U.S. Constitution goes.

        That leaves California’s constitution. Nowhere does it actually state that education is a fundamental right; that was constructed by the courts with respect to funding disparities. This, however, is a neutral law of general applicability. Even if one managed to elevate the standard from rational-basis review to strict scrutiny, it is well settled that public health in schools satisfies the compelling-interest test. What less restrictive means do you propose? That is, how should the law be amended? Eliminating “I don’t feel like it” exemptions per se is just fine, as AB 2109 demonstrated.

        Or is the argument going to be that homeschooling is intrinsically inferior? There’s exactly one legal angle that has the slightest chance, and these are two versions of it.

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        “Eliminating ‘I don’t feel like it’ exemptions per se is just fine, as AB 2109 demonstrated.”

        That statement right there is a prime example of why we’re going to win this fight. That statement indicates that you DON’T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE what you’re up against because you have no idea why we’re doing what we’re doing. As far as you’re concerned, people are choosing not to vaccinate because they “don’t feel like it.” There are two reasons why people are choosing not to vaccinate: 1) They have seen them do tremendous damage firsthand to either themselves or family members (and most of the things that we know make people more susceptible to vaccine damage are genetic in nature); And/or 2) they have done research into the true risks and benefits of vaccines and they have made an informed decision that the benefits of one or more vaccines do not outweigh the risks for their family. In other words, they are doing a parent’s job — PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN. Ever got between a lioness and her cubs? I suspect not, as it is unlikely you would have survived. Senator Pan and SB 277 made the tremendous strategic mistake of getting between Thinking Moms and their children. He can expect far worse than a lion attack, because a lioness has nothing on a Thinking Mom.

      • A mom like you says:

        I am a mother of two young children (fully vaxxed – on schedule no less!) and ALSO concerned with protecting my children and I am THRILLED that SB277 passed. There is NO evidence that vaccines cause harm beyond the miniscule percentage children who have truly suffered vaccine injuries. (In most cases, correlation does not equal causation and vaccines are in no way responsible for asthma, ADHD, autism, etc.) The amount of TRUE vaccine injuries are infinitely fewer in actuality than the deaths and horrific side effects that we would face should these diseases come back in full force. This bill does not remove informed consent and this has been proven by the courts again and again. I AM a thinking mom and I take issue with you telling me that I am not. Do not get between me and MY cubs.

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        *sigh* You are not a “mom like me” if you are thrilled that SB277 passed. SB277 takes away a parent’s right to decide whether or not their children will be subjected to drugs that frequently have dubious benefits, while each one carries with it the risk of death. No one in an official capacity has any interest in determining ahead of time who will react extremely badly to any particular vaccine. It is up to the parents themselves, many of whom have done extensive research on the subject. If you are delighted that YOUR children will be medical science experiments, that is is YOUR right. But you should certainly not expect every parent (especially those who already have children who have suffered greatly due to vaccine injury) to feel the same way, nor — if you have any moral compass whatsoever — would you wish their children to be forced to take a hit so that yours have a slightly lower probability of encountering measles or chicken pox in their lifetimes.

        I note you provide no back-up for your claim that “vaccines are in no way responsible for asthma, ADHD, autism, etc.” not even an alternate hypothesis. I guess we’re just supposed to take your word for it and ignore the people who are actually helping people recover from those conditions. We’re also supposed to ignore the history of allergy (most asthma is allergic, the first mass allergy was called “serum sickness” and was induced by hypodermic injection of vaccine proteins), and the direct effect that immune system stimulation (such as occurs in response to a vaccine) has on the brain, the fact that many of the ingredients in vaccine are toxic to the brain and there is evidence that they do indeed get inside the brain. You also seem to be unaware that in the 1950s, there were only vaccines for four diseases in widespread use then that are still being vaccinated for widely today: polio, pertussis, tetanus, and diptheria, and people were NOT dropping like flies from “deaths and horrific side effects” of other diseases, and they did not suffer from what Kenneth Bock calls “the new childhood epidemics” (asthma, allergies, ADHD, autism) in large numbers. I was born in the early 1960s. I became allergic at the age of 11 and asthmatic at 13. It was RARE in those days. So rare that they still told people it was “psychosomatic” and most seemed completely unaware of its connection to allergy.

        Of those four diseases we were vaccinating for in the ’50s, tetanus is not contagious. If you avoid the tetanus vaccine, you are risking no one’s life but your own. The polio and diphtheria vaccines do not prevent transmission of either of those diseases. And the pertussis vaccine currently in use is likely to be responsible for the current resurgence of whooping cough. The acellular version is not as effective as the whole cell version previously used, nor does it cover the parapertussis strain. In fact, one strain that is quite prevalent these days infects vaccinated people at a higher rate than unvaccinated people.

        The fact that you have “TRUE” in capital letters when discussing vaccine injuries indicates that you are dismissing parents’ own accounts of what happened to their children. Therefore, you are not according other parents the same respect you would wish them to accord yourself. Why should anyone listen to YOUR feelings on the subject if you discount theirs?

        The bill DOES “remove informed consent” because it has removed the “consent” part. If you cannot say no to something that is by definition not consent. Look at it this way, if someone said your children have to go to school, but your children CAN’T go to school unless the superintendent of schools is allowed to have sex with you, no court of law in the country would uphold any “consent” you gave under those circumstances. This is EXACTLY the same. Yes, some people will get around the law by homeschooling, but that is not an option for many, many people.

        And, in most cases, high degrees of correlation DO equal causation. That’s actually how they “proved” that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Or did you think they did double-blind placebo-controlled studies? A court of law ASSUMES a relative risk of two in an exposed population to be evidence of causation because it’s “more likely than not” that the exposure caused the particular condition under question. Did you know that the famous Verstraeten study that came out in 2004 “proving that vaccines don’t cause autism” was reworked 5 times prior to publication? And that the final version was a “neutral” study, which means that it didn’t come to ANY conclusion on the subject, much less “vaccines don’t cause autism.” In fact, the correlation discovered in the first analyses (the ones that made sense) of the data between early high doses of injected Thimerosal and neurological conditions such as autism was HUGE. Autism was 7.6-11.4 times more common in children with high exposure in the first month life than children who had had no exposure. That’s a LOT higher “correlation” than the relative risk of two required in a court of law. In addition, according to William Thompson, a CDC epidemiologist and co-author of a number of other studies “proving” that “vaccines don’t cause autism,” CDC researchers actually found a 3.6 relative risk for black boys who had received the MMR on time over those who had had it after the age of five and HID the result. As a matter of fact, they GOT RID of the data (which is illegal). And another study found that autism was three times more common in boys who had the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine than boys who had not had it at all or received it later.

        No one here is trying to “get between you and YOUR cubs” in any way. We uphold YOUR right to make healthcare decisions for YOUR children. It’s too bad that you don’t offer other parents the same respect. It’s quite possible that this law will “get between you and YOUR cubs” someday, though, if one of your children suddenly reacted really badly to a vaccine or you didn’t want your child to take the risk of vaccination for an illness that he or she was extremely unlikely to encounter, for instance. Unfortunately, many parents display an equal lack of imagination and empathy before it happens to them.

        I can see why you might take exception if I said that you were not a thinking mom, but as I don’t know you, you have never commented on the blog before, and I don’t say such things to people in the first place, it’s extremely unlikely I did say that. (Note: in the comment above I use the term “Thinking Moms” with initial caps, which is what we call ourselves — it’s in the website’s name — and people who follow our blog. There is no implication whatsoever that people who don’t are not “thinking moms.”) I will, however, say that I think there is a lot MORE thinking that it would behoove you to do. You might want to start with these 100 studies and papers that are indeed evidence that vaccines can indeed cause harm.

  8. Gloria says:

    Thank you Linda Carpenter for taking the time to write this very well articulated letter! I’ll be praying that our governor pays attention to this letter and feels moved to stand with us against the lies and misinformation the big pharmas spread. thanks also to all the people that have rallied and educated and stepped up to the plate even if it was through a call or letter to their senator. You guys are awesome! God bless you and your families!!

  9. Kara Rex says:

    I truly hope and wishes he reads this.

  10. Val Lancaster says:

    Thank you, Linda, for you well written and informative letter to Gov. Brown. I, too, had my children vaccinated (they are now 29, 25 and 21) although I would probably not adhere to the current CDC schedule if I had young children today. Vaccination IS a medical, non lifesaving procedure that does not come without risk. It is a procedure that must be made by parents and not coerced by a bullying government with questionable ties to the very industry that stands to gain so much if this bill is not vetoed by Gov. Brown.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      I think some would argue with the “non lifesaving” qualifier in your comment, but what I think you meant is that it vaccination is merely a preventive measure that is performed on people who are currently HEALTHY and in no immediate need of ANY intervention. In order to justify a particular vaccine’s use (NOT vaccines as a blanket whole) the benefit should be very high for the individual being vaccinated and the risk should be minimal. We are well aware that, for many people, the risks are anything but minimal, and there is no official investigation going on into whom those people might be.

  11. The checks and balances that are supposed to stand between our children and having the choice to make medical decision on their behalf have been removed with SB277 in California. People on both sides of the vaccination issue should be alarmed by this. The only barrier left is parents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *