For Californians, it has shown up in the form of Sen. Richard Pan.
Pan, D-Sacramento, is a pediatrician. He has been the driving force behind all major vaccine legislation in California for the past five years. As a state assemblyman, he launched and helped pass AB 2109, legislation signed into law that directly caused a 6% increase in vaccinations statewide from 2010 to 2014 (89% to 94.7%).
Now, a state senator, Pan is pushing SB 277. And all along the way he promised his constituents he would preserve parental choice. He lied.
Pan’s SB 277 — a bill written specifically to deny parent’s rights to access public schools if they opt out of vaccinations — closes the loophole Big Pharma has tried to close for years. By using policy, pharmaceutical companies are attempting to seed their profits nationwide, forcing those who delay or opt out for religious or personal beliefs to be denied a public school education.
It’s already happened in Mississippi and West Virginia. And it’s happening to the tune of 110 bills in 35 states that have been rolled out on cue during the past 90 days following a trumped-up measles apocalypse-that-was-not at Disneyland in December 2014 (134 cases, nobody died, .000003% of California’s population).
If Pan passes SB 277, Californians would all be required, according to the CDC schedule, to take 35 injections by the age of 6 in order to attend public school. And, despite the most basic notion of conflict of interest, Sen. Pan’s taken money all along the way from the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, Merck, as far back as the beginning of his political career in 2010.
And he has company.
Sen. Holly Mitchell, co-author of SB 277, accepted contributions — according to Merck’s website — as recently as last July when she was elected in a special election. In doing so, she may be guilty of violating the 1974 California Political Campaign reform act, which reads:
“… no gift or gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.”
Mitchell voted on SB 277 last week, which would make her in violation since SB 277 would bring financial gain to Merck who gave her money within 12 months of the vote.
Mitchell has been receiving direct funding from Merck as far back as 2010, as have other members of the State Senate Health Committee (see chart below) including Sen. Andy Vidak. Vidak also received direct funds from Merck as recently as 2014. Vidak was set to vote on the bill Wednesday as a member of the Education Committee, but because it was tabled he will vote privately next week. Voting on this bill could also put him inside the restricted 12-month period (click here to see the campaign donations).
Education Committee Chairman Carol Liu expressed a desire for religious exemption to be an option in California, after witnessing droves of parents of vaccine injured children show up at Wednesday’s hearing (click on the above link and start at 48:30 to hear). There were also educators, health professionals and constituents that came forward to let their voices be heard in opposition to the proposed legislation. Liu gave Pan one week to re-tool and return for a private vote next week.
But the larger question remains: How did we get here in the first place?
In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” The ruling allowed Big Pharma to be exempt from any responsibility of injury, and instead the Government set up a separate ‘court’ that pays Big Pharma’s bill for those who are either have a vaccine injured child or have a child who died as a result of vaccines. To date, the government-sponsored Vaccine Injury Fund has paid out $3 billion in settlement costs to families. Result? No Courts. You can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer if you are injured.
The next puzzle piece fell into place in the late ’90s. when the FCC deregulated its advertising policy allowing for pharmaceutical companies to market drugs direct-to-consumers (DTC marketing). That’s when the ‘ask your doctor’ commercials started showing up on television, which allows companies like Merck to market their drugs directly to children. Merck did exactly that with their controversial Gardasil vaccine, launching a fear campaign on VH1 that targeted teenage girls directly to get them to go to their parents and ask to get the shots. It worked.
It is also what has enabled Big Pharma to own the media, who in the age of the internet, are fighting for every advertising dollar they can get to stay alive. According to Robert Kennedy, Jr., Big Pharma is responsible for up to 70% of the advertising revenue on network television in non-election years and, as a result, major networks refuse to air the story. Result? No media.
So our courts are bought, our media is bought. What’s left?
Routine campaign practices: In 2014, Merck Pharmaceuticals spent $1 million plus on political donations made directly to candidates running for office across the United States. Those contributions follow a pattern of typically small, $1,000, $2,500, etc., mainly because they are direct and on the record.
But if you dig a little deeper, it turns out the indirect contributions are where things start to get more interesting. The real money is shuffled from hand-to-hand via third-party groups called political action committees (PACs).
For example, Merck gives $15k to the PAC Biotech Industrial Organization; the Biotech Industrial Organization turns around and gives $10k to the Democratic Governor’s Association. The Democratic Party is the largest contributor to Sen. Pan’s campaigns (followthemoney.org). PACs like, PhRMA (Amgen, Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie Inc.) regularly fund politician’s campaigns (see $54,000 & $6,000 contributions by PhRMA to California politicians in the chart above), but they do it in ways you and I might never suspect. Result? No politicians.
PhRMA hired 757 lobbyists in 15 years.
Merck gives ten times that and more in national grants at medical schools and universities, thereby sprinkling the money like a bread-crumb trail to up-and-coming doctors and researchers making sure they are bought before they even get out of medical school.
It gets worse.
Merck is the exclusive maker and manufacturer of 10 vaccines currently on the CDC schedule, the most controversial being Gardasil and the MMR. (Gardasil is facing formal criminal complaints from Spain filed in August of last year. The story has yet to make headlines amongst major media outlets in the United States at the time of this post.)
Merck’s MMR vaccine is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, as Merck is being accused of falsifying data with the MMR in order to meet the 95% efficacy rate which is the benchmark required by the FDA to maintain its monopoly on patent. It also could indicate vaccine failure and be the reason for recent outbreaks among vaccinated individuals (the story only appears in mainstream media on Huff Post Canada). Moreover, former virologist-turned-whistleblower Dr. Bill Thompson recently confessed that he and his co-workers intentionally omitted statistically significant data in a 2004 study published in the journal Pediatrics that demonstrated that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were 336% more likely to suffer an autistic response” (DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, et al. “Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta.” Pediatrics 2004 Feb; 113(2): 259-66).
Cut to the heavily trumped-up Disneyland measles outbreak which appeared at the happiest place on earth just a few months after the #CDCWhistleblower story came forward. According to the California Department of Public Health the all clear will sound April 17.
So, is Sen. Pan acting in the best interest of Californians by pushing policy to mandate the injections of Merck’s products into our bodies at a time when the safety and efficacy of the company’s products is in serious question? Or is Pan putting the agenda of his campaign financiers first? Are our politicians gone? Is your politician on Merck’s payroll? More important, do you care if ‘biostitutes’ are making decisions that affect your children?
No courts. No media. No politicians. So all that’s left is the parents. It’s up to us. If you are concerned and want to say enough is enough, contact your state representatives and let your voice be heard. And feel free to leave your comments below and follow The Mom Street Journal for more updates.