Tag Archives: Dr. Richard Pan

SB277 Opponents: Why Hold a Referendum on an Unconstitutional Law?

united-states-constitution

By Jake Crosby

If a law is unconstitutional, why hold a referendum on it? The constitution is meant to prevent the passage of laws that infringe on individual rights, even when such laws have support of 99% of the population. With 82% of Californians supporting SB277 which aims to revoke vaccine exemptions, a referendum will not strike down the law. Instead, the referendum will give rise to the perception that opponents view the law as constitutional when it is not.

Although the US Supreme Court has ruled that police powers of the state can trump individual liberties in its 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling, it also put limitations on those powers. In its decision, the court stated that “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence.”

Because SB277 seeks to mandate the routine immunization schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for anyone seeking to attend a public or private school in California, the CDC should be legally considered to be part of the state. CDC’s conduct therefore reflects on the constitutionality of SB277, or rather its lack of constitutionality.

CDC has proven its lack of integrity on vaccine safety issues, having concealed proof of harm from mercury in vaccines. CDC’s top immunization official has lied to Congress, and the CDC has covered up evidence linking autism to the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine among other vaccine dangers according to a senior CDC scientist.

Despite CDC’s conduct and lack of integrity, SB277 fully mandates CDC’s immunization schedule and revokes all parental choice exemptions to it in California. Far from addressing the issues with CDC, Senator Richard Pan, a primary co-sponsor of SB277, sought to deny them by calling the senior CDC scientist who became a whistleblower against his own federal agency a “fraud.” So SB277 is unconstitutional, and is therefore illegal even when considering the police powers of the state as they pertain to individual rights.

Unfortunately, some lawyers have not considered the constitutionality of SB277 from every angle. Attorney Alan Phillips who specializes in vaccine exemptions stated that “courts can’t second-guess the legislature with respect to vaccine and infectious disease facts” in a letter addressed to “Concerned California Citizens.” Although Phillips was correct in saying that the right to attend school would probably not be a viable legal basis to strike down SB277, he was wrong to state that legislatures have carte blanche to invoke their police powers by revoking school vaccine exemptions. The Supreme Court’s 1905 ruling forbade exactly what SB277 will do: mandate a dangerous immunization schedule produced by a federal agency proven to lie about vaccine dangers as a punitive measure against those resisting the CDC’s vaccination policies.

A lawsuit that makes the previously described case against SB277 is how the law should be fought. Lawsuits predicated solely on parental rights, religious rights or the right to an education will likely be no more successful than a referendum for not addressing how SB277 constitutes an abuse of the state’s police powers. Such cases are perhaps the only the kinds of lawsuits SB277 opponents have approached attorneys with, hence their reluctance to take on SB277 and Attorney Phillips’ preference for a referendum.

Nonetheless, attorneys should examine SB277 with the understanding that there are limits on how a state can invoke its police powers via mandatory vaccination while also taking into consideration the behavior of federal agencies whose misconduct shows SB277 is an abuse of such powers. The case for SB277’s unconstitutionality and that of a similar law revoking the secular choice exemption in Vermont needs to be argued correctly to effectively maximize the possibility that these laws will die and never return from the dead.

As long as a referendum is in the works, however, such lawsuits may not happen. People will wrongly believe that opponents view SB277 as constitutional for organizing a popular vote on it, and an overwhelming vote in favor of SB277 is likely. Unlike judges, the majority of constituents will not have the chance to hear cases against SB277 – only support for SB277 from a media trained to lie by the CDC.

Judges, however, will have to hear cases against SB277 – if a lawsuit against SB277’s constitutionality is filed. The referendum could delay that and will end in failure. Properly argued lawsuits against SB277 and similar legislation are necessary to strike them down.

Canary Party-Led Group Behind Failed SB277 Opposition

CCHCSolo

“Autism rates have continued to rise even though we are not using thimerosal in vaccines for children.” – Richard Pan, co-sponsor of CA SB277

“But there’s a hard bit of evidence here regarding the thimerosal argument. The rates in California never went down and as far as I can tell are still going straight up with no deceleration at all. And you’ve seen the Denmark numbers.” – Mark Blaxill, now founder and chairman of Canary Party

By Jake Crosby

One might say it was a repeat of what happened with the US congressional hearing failure of 2012-2013 – the undermining of a cause with the imposition of an ineffective strategy. That is what many Californians are saying happened at the State Assembly Health Committee hearing and in the general movement against Senate Bill 277, now a newly signed law that eliminates the choice to opt out of vaccination. As with the congressional hearing, a key witness Dr. Brian Hooker was prevented from speaking on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) malfeasance in covering up vaccine injury. The debacle over SB277 also bears the claw prints of the same leadership elements, chiefly those of a Minnesota-based PAC: the Canary Party.

Because media coverage of the bill was controlled by the CDC, testimony to the state legislature was all the more necessary to kill the bill. But kill effective testimony in favor of a “‘middle of the road’ strategy,” and the bill’s passing into law is practically imminent.

Such a strategy was taken by the organization through which Canary Party coordinates its activities relevant to SB277 in California: the “California Coalition for Health Choice” (CCHC). While trying to do damage control for Canary Party on Facebook threads, Canary Party’s State Director Sylvia Pimentel only revealed more negative information about her organization. Pimentel said she, Rebecca Estepp, Jude Tovatt, Dawn Winkler and Laura Hayes comprised the Canary Party leadership within CCHC that had input on the fight against the bill, despite previously admitting: “Laura and Dawn left the coalition a few weeks ago because they didn’t like the ‘middle of the road’ strategy that CCHC was morphing into.”

Pimentel further admitted that CCHC members were afraid of their own cause, “Some members were gun-shy about being publicly quoted because of possible push-back in their careers or private life for being ‘anti-vaccine’.” Moreover, one of Canary Party’s California leaders promoted vaccination. Rebecca Estepp – director of communications for CCHC – drew criticism for advocating “moderation” and promoting vaccination last year. Such an approach inherently conflicts with raising awareness of vaccine dangers.

Canary Party’s Dr. Toni Bark revealed to Autism Investigated that the other remaining Canary Party leader in CCHC – Jude Tovatt – was trying to discourage the coalition from tackling safety, corruption or fraud issues inherent to the vaccine program. Tovatt wanted to avoid the very facts that are most damning against SB277, making Canary Party responsible for the “middle of the road” strategy Pimentel admitted CCHC resorted to. Dr. Bark even said she suspected Tovatt is a shill.

The fallout from this strategy reached its climax at the Assembly Health Committee’s hearing on SB277. According to one eyewitness account reported in the AWAKE California Facebook group on how people were shut out of the hearing:

“I was with dr hooker when the guard asked for our names and then there were no seats left. But there were seats left, CCHC kept coming out and pulling people in. But we were closed out. Until I had two people from my regional group give up their seats timed with when the main guard was pulled away for a minute.”

The Facebook group member also said in that same post that CCHC falsely led people to believe that Dr. Hooker would testify, but he never did.

In response, Canary Party denied having any say in choosing speakers, asserting:

“The way the process works (or fails to work) in California is that groups who are opposing a bill put names forward on who they want to testify on their behalf, and the Committee Chair’s office decides who will be seated at the table.”

But a staffer from the Committee Chair’s office wrote in email that bill opponents chose who spoke for them at the hearing:

“The Committee does not organize testimony on either side of the debate. The author’s office organizes testimony in support and opponents typically organize amongst themselves and decide who will testify.”

Rather than explain why Dr. Hooker did not testify, Pimentel instead explained to a critic why he did not join CCHC:

“Dr. Brian Hooker was invited to join, but never responded. You are accusing me of sabotaging the fight – and that is absolutely obscene.”

That he would not join CCHC is hardly surprising given its ties to Canary Party and Canary Party’s history of undermining his congressional efforts. The troubled history following Canary Party’s Chairman Mark Blaxill also goes back long before he founded Canary Party.

Blaxill consulted for pharmaceutical companies while at Boston Consulting Group and now sits on the board of directors of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, funded by his former employer. He was an invited speaker at the 2001 Institute of Medicine meeting despite his lack of credentials, organizational leadership or publication record where he failed to disclose his concurrent BCG employment. He has also interfered in the omnibus autism cases, turning attorneys against expert witnesses and even throwing the case against thimerosal. He told Brian Hooker in 2007:

“But there’s a hard bit of evidence here regarding the thimerosal argument. The rates in California never went down and as far as I can tell are still going straight up with no deceleration at all. And you’ve seen the Denmark numbers.”

Yet research at the time showed there was a deceleration, and autism went down in Denmark after thimerosal was removed. Not surprisingly, SB277’s co-sponsor Senator Richard Pan channeled Blaxill’s talking point, “Autism rates have continued to rise even though we are not using thimerosal in vaccines for children,” Sacramento Bee quoted Pan as saying. It is hardly surprising that the coalition through which Canary Party conducted its activities in California took a “‘middle of the road’ strategy” to fighting a law that will now keep children from attending school for not being fully vaccinated according to CDC’s own aggressive immunization schedule.

While answering for Canary Party’s troublesome involvement in failing the opposition to SB277 on Facebook, Sylvia Pimentel grew increasingly agitated and defensive. At one point, she dramatically stated, “I have been accused of horrible things, so I have had no choice but respond. But now I will make my exit. Peace.” She returned a short while later to make a legal threat against a commenter. One cannot help but wonder if the outcome of fighting SB277 could have been different had CCHC’s leadership fought the law with the same level of zeal as Pimentel’s attack on some advocates she claims to share common cause with.

Meanwhile, SB277’s architect Richard Pan wants other states to follow California’s example:

“As the largest state in the country, we are sending a strong signal to the rest of the country that this can be done, that science and facts will prevail to make sound laws”.

Far from Canary Party/CCHC’s “middle of the road” approach, ensuring that science and facts prevail over the fraudulent science and lies spouted by Pan is the best way to kill bills like his. Time to stop supporting Canary Party.

See on The Epoch Times.

How Andrew Wakefield Alienated NAACP

NAACP_Logo_With_Cal_Tag

By Jake Crosby

How did potential congressional testimony of a senior federal scientist blowing the whistle on omitted research showing an increased risk for autism from vaccination among African-American children devolve into race-baiting by black separatists, alienating civil rights groups? Even worse, how did it come to be that civil rights groups like the NAACP of California actually start supporting California Senate Bill 277 and Senate Bill 792 that would keep children from whom any required vaccination was withheld for any reason out of school and daycare respectively? The probable answer lies in the activities of one de-licensed British doctor: Andrew Wakefield.

His hijacking of the story about US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower Dr. William Thompson went far beyond releasing his name and surreptitious recordings of his voice without his permission. It also went far beyond tainting the story with Wakefield’s name, thereby alienating potential media coverage and possible congressional subpoena.

Wakefield also manipulated the message in a way that would be very appealing to a black separatist group like the Nation of Islam and very repulsive to civil rights groups like NAACP. Most notably, he did this by invoking the notoriously unethical syphilis experiment on African-American men in Tuskegee, Mississippi. The Nation of Islam has since popularized the Tuskegee invocation tactic that originated with Wakefield to denounce the SB277 bill, only to earn of the scorn of civil rights groups.

As reported in The Root, those groups put out the following message:

“Unfortunately, recent attacks on the measure have been vicious, unfounded, and distort the science and history of childhood immunization within our community,” a statement from the groups says, according to the Times. “Our organizations denounce assertions that vaccination of black children would be another Tuskegee experiment.”

And those groups include the following, according to The Root:

“The groups disputing [Nation of Islam Minister Tony] Muhammad’s comments include the California State Conference of the NAACP, the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, the Charles Drew Medical Society, the California Black Health Network and the Network of Ethnic Physician Organizations, the Times reports.”

Previously, Wakefield’s hijacking led to SB277’s co-sponsor Dr. Richard Pan painting the CDC whistleblower as “another Wakefield fraud.”  Now thanks to the message that originated with Wakefield and its appeal to the Nation of Islam, Pan has won some civil rights backing for his bill that he otherwise might not have had.

How ironic that the Age of Autism blog’s editor Dan Olmsted expressed disgust at the Nation of Islam’s involvement when he helped Wakefield broadcast the message that sat well with the Nation and not with the NAACP. Age of Autism has also been helping Wakefield promote a documentary he is making that would presumably resort to the same race-baiting tactic from when the whistleblower was outed.

Andrew Wakefield can already expect rave reviews from Louis Farrakhan and none from the NAACP.

See on The Epoch Times.

Correction: This post previously named Assembly Bill 2109 as eliminating vaccine exemptions for daycare facilities; the correct bill was Senate Bill 792. Autism Investigated regrets the error.

CA SB277 Bill Co-Sponsor Called Senior CDC Scientist a “Fraud”

Richard Pan

By Jake Crosby

In a tweet sent to over 3,000 followers, California State Senator and vaccine exemption elimination bill co-sponsor Dr. Richard Pan called senior Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientist-turned-whistleblower Dr. William Thompson “another Wakefield fraud.” Pan’s calling Thompson a “Wakefield fraud” was a reference to de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who publicized Thompson’s identity and voice recordings without his permission in a series of videos released online. Yet the article linked to in Pan’s tweet concerned a paper authored by neither Thompson nor Wakefield, was never found to be fraudulent and which in no way detracted from what Thompson himself said in a public statement released last August:

“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African-American males who received the [measles, mumps, rubella] MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

Richard Pan’s calling Thompson a “fraud” comes at a time when the California legislature is considering passing Senate Bill 277, co-sponsored by Pan. That bill would eliminate all statewide, so-called non-medical exemptions from the CDC’s recommended routine childhood vaccination schedule, which CDC defended by committing research misconduct according to a researcher who is still a senior scientist at CDC. That means that Pan’s bill would mandate that California schoolchildren be subjected to vaccine side-effects that CDC is covering up.

It is hardly any wonder why Thompson was called “another Wakefield fraud” by Pan, who in doing so proved himself as dishonest as the CDC’s ongoing fraudulent defense of its vaccination schedule. It does not matter that Pan is a medical doctor, because he is also a medical liar. His bill must be killed.

See on The Epoch Times.