Tag Archives: Vermont

Autism Investigated Shuts Down Bernie Sanders, Censorship Candidate

BN-MG647_Bernie_DV_20160125145318

I think the evidence is overwhelming that vaccines do not cause autism. And it really is a little bit weird for Trump – who, I presume, has no medical background – to be raising this issue. And obviously it is a concern. When somebody like that says it, you’re gonna find thousands of people now who are gonna hesitate to give their kids the shots, and bad things may happen. – Bernie Sanders, The Rachel Maddow Show, September 17, 2015

Donald Trump is the only good presidential candidate on the vaccine issue, that’s why Autism Investigated endorses him. However, there is only one candidate who trashed Trump for speaking out for vaccine safety despite similar concerns expressed by the two doctors in the same GOP debate, who calls for censorship of the issue, who said the evidence against vaccines causing autism is “overwhelming” despite being approached with the overwhelming evidence for an association by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and another physician and who even called unvaccinated children killers. That candidate is far-left extremist, race-baiting demagogue, Democratic Party presidential candidate and ice cream flavor poster boy Bernie Sanders. And because he encourages censorship, any comments of support for his candidacy will not be allowed at Autism Investigated from here on out.

Look at a quote from him on his Senate page: “if I have a kid who is suffering from an illness who is subjected to a kid who walks into a room without vaccines that could kill that child and that’s wrong.” For someone so concerned about protecting children who would have adverse reactions to vaccines, he sure does not think it is wrong for children to be needlessly poisoned as a result of the vaccine program’s lies.

At the time Sanders made that statement, the governor of Sanders’ home state of Vermont said he would veto any bill that would rid the state of its philosophical vaccination exemption. But two days after Sanders formally announced his presidential candidacy in the Democratic Party primary on May 26th, the governor signed into law a bill that did just that – making Vermont the first state to repeal its philosophical vaccine exemption. California would shortly follow.

Most bizarrely about Bernie Sanders, he seems to be surprisingly well-liked among vaccine skeptics considering he’s a bona fide vaccine liar. The managing editor for the self-styled vaccine safety and Democrat-edited blog Age of Autism actually wrote that “Sanders represent[s] a chink in the armor of the status quo” of censorship, even though he called for censorship of this issue. Even more disturbing is how Autism Investigated has come under fire by Bernie supporters on Facebook for supporting Trump. And when you remind them what Bernie Sanders has said, they completely dismiss it. Here is what one person responded when Autism Investigated pointed out that Sanders likened Republican candidates to mental patients and trashed Trump for speaking out for safer vaccines:

Trump IS crazy…so Sanders sayingthat isn’t really mocking…it would be stating facts..I know as a Trump supporter…those are something you don’t ever get to hear…facts!

When this post about Trump reiterating his stance for vaccine safety in a recent interview was shared in the vaccine skeptic Facebook group AWAKE California, a Bernie troll came in and called people “fascists” and “bigots” for supporting Trump before she was finally banned. The lies that Trump is a bigot, racist or fascist are commonly pushed by Sanders and his supporters, who have also backed the violent shutdown of Trump’s rally in Chicago. One of Sanders’ terrorists even tried to rush Trump on stage in Ohio before being stopped by Secret Service. If Sanders’ supporters have done all this, it’s not difficult to imagine them infiltrating vaccine skeptic forums to mislead people into thinking Sanders is a good candidate when he is the polar opposite.

The bottom line, however, is this: any candidate who supports shutting down the only candidate who supports vaccine safety and discussion of vaccine safety altogether does not deserve a forum of support on any website that supports vaccine safety and certainly not in Autism Investigated’s comments, Twitter feed or Facebook threads. When DailyKos banned linking vaccines to autism in its discussion threads, Autism Investigated responded by banning any comments that link to Kos to prevent readers from posting over there only to be banned for their views. Autism Investigated will do the same here by trashing any comments and blocking any Twitter accounts that post anything supportive of Bernie Sanders in AI’s discussions.

That said, anybody can still comment here regardless of which candidate they support, just take your support for the ice cream man elsewhere. For example: if you submit a comment citing leftist blogs like HuffPo and Salon to falsely portray Sanders as some sort of crusader against big pharma even though both sites actively censor vaccine safety, your comment will be canned. There are plenty of places like the Age of Autism blog where you are more than welcome to advertise your support for Sanders, as that site already has a habit of praising the horrible candidates who are the Democrats with its nauseatingly obsequious outreach to Hillary Clinton.

If you are upset that you are being “censored” for your support of Bernie Sanders, don’t be angry with Autism Investigated. Be angry with Sanders for supporting censorship of this issue and causing this new rule to be imposed on all his supporters here at Autism Investigated. Big pharma has given him more money than any of the remaining Republican candidates for a reason. And in case you love Sanders so much that you have to see him pushing censorship of the vaccine issue to believe it, here is the video of him doing just that:

Bernie Sanders is now shut down at Autism Investigated. No feeling the Bern here.

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.