by Lori Gregory
Health Impact News
Amidst the ever changing, controversial white waters of vaccine safety, parents who choose natural immunity are being targeted by certain members of the medical, legal and public health communities as being guilty of medical neglect.
As readers of Health Impact News’ MedicalKidnap.com website are fully aware, “medical neglect” is a broad term frequently used against parents who dare to disagree with doctors over the healthcare of their children, and can result in Child Protective Services (CPS) taking the children away from their families by force.
The latest example of this usurping of parental rights, which is being pushed and orchestrated by vaccine extremists who insist on pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to immunity, appears in the February edition of the American Journal of Public Health, in an article entitled “Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.”
The paper, authored by Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, sets out to examine court cases where vaccine refusal is categorized as “medical neglect” under child welfare laws.
Vaccine Extremists Attempt to Establish Vaccine Refusal with Parental Neglect Despite a Burden of Proof to the Contrary
In an attempt to establish a legal precedent for parents who choose natural immunity over vaccine mandates, and in an effort to identify those same parents as being medically negligent for doing so, Parasidis & Opel set out to identify court opinions ranging from 1905 to 2016 that ruled not vaccinating was legal medical neglect. Their search allegedly identified only a total of 9 cases in 5 states, 7 of which ruled vaccine refusal constituted neglect.
That miniscule number pales in comparison to the thousands of parents who have come forward claiming that their children experienced a vaccine reaction ranging from the condition itself that the vaccine was supposed to prevent, to death. In fact, the article fails to even address what the associative risk to vaccinating would be in compared to not vaccinating.
Before we analyze further the authors’ conclusions, let’s first examine why such a small sample would even be worthy of a published article in an American journal at this moment in time.
Controversial Proposed California Bill Has Ties to Defunct Clinton Global Initiative
One need only to look to California politics to understand the reason for such a piece; a thinly veiled attempt to lay groundwork to link parental rights to choose natural immunity with medical neglect.
Sen. Richard Pan, the California politician who was the main sponsor of the controversial mandatory vaccine law SB277, which forces parents to choose between medical freedom and sending their kids to public or private school, just introduced another bill which fits perfectly into this puzzle.
SB18 — a scant, outline of a bill dubbed the “child bill of rights” — was introduced by Pan in December. It seeks to define what constitutes parental standards with regard to children’s health, education and welfare and is being sold to parents in the State of California in a town-hall-style format.
The already controversial bill has very deep ties to the Clinton Foundation via Pan’s official sponsor, Jim Steyer of Common Sense Media. Brother of environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer, Jim and his brother have very deep connections to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, and are using their influence to push for the bill, which seeks to control the rights of parents even further in California by defining what constitutes a child’s well being.
Jim, who has been a professor of political science at Stanford for the past 25 years, has a class list of former students that includes former New Jersey mayor-turned-senator Cory Booker, Obama’s former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Chelsea Clinton herself, which explains Steyer’s closeness and allegiance to the Clinton family and his and his brother’s multi-million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation and now defunct Clinton Global Initiative.
Do the parents of California want someone with ties to the now defunct Clinton organization deciding what’s best for their children, especially when that same organization has direct ties to Laura Silsby, who was convicted of child trafficking in Haiti?
Conflict of Interest with Journal’s Authors?
Richard Pan is not the only familiar face connecting to the narrative in the Journal article; co-authors Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, have very distinct connections and associations with the vaccine extremists that are familiar faces in this narrative.
Firstly, Parasidis, in addition to being a bioethicist, is also an intellectual property attorney — the kind that would assist someone like Paul Offit with patenting and licensing a rotavirus vaccine. In fact, Parasidis has a master’s degree in bioethics from the University of Pennsylvania, which is exactly where Offit serves as the Professor of “Vaccinology” and a Professor of Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine. “Offit for Profit,” as he has been dubbed in the medical freedom movement, is famous for making millions of dollars from the sale of the vaccine.
The second author of the paper, Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, has very deep ties to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and in fact in May of 2015 was part of a trial funded by Gates designed to coach doctors on how to convince parents to vaccinate. Developed by Vax Northwest, a Washington state public-private partnership, the results of the trial are reported in Pediatrics in “Physician Communication Training and Parental Vaccine Hesitancy: A Randomized Trial,” with an accompanying editorial: “Physician Communication with Vaccine-Hesitant Parents: The Start, Not the End, of the Story.”
Why Are Public Funds Co-mingled with Private Special Interest Groups Studying How to Convince Parents to Vaccinate Their Children Instead of Studying How to Decrease Children’s Health Problems?
Public-private partnerships tend to be controversial organizations, mostly because they take public money but also take money from private entities. Often those private entities have hidden agendas that would make using public monies a conflict of interest, which is why public-private partnerships can be a front organization.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continues to execute a fanatical push toward mass vaccination, despite the fact that in other countries they are being sued and are under fire for damages and deaths as a direct result of their vaccination programs.
Parents, in the meantime, are scratching their heads wondering why so much money and resources are being spent to “convince” parents of something, if it is supposed to be so harmless.
They are also wondering why, simultaneously, according to a study published in Academic Pediatrics, up to 54% of American children continue to suffer from chronic illness.
Many in the medical freedom, natural health and immunology community are questioning the serious link between the aggressive CDC vaccine schedule and the health of American children, including the recently published study by Yale linking vaccines to neuropsychiatric conditions.
What is the Risk of Not Vaccinating Versus Vaccinating and Risking Injury or Even Death?
And finally, what was the conclusion of the Parasidis/Opel paper?
The most that can be concluded from their results is there is no concrete conclusion. The missing piece seems to be: how do these cases compare to the negligence of vaccine injury?
In other words, what is the risk of not vaccinating versus vaccinating and risking injury?
Parents continue to navigate these choppy waters with very little accurate data, doing their best to protect their children while politics and medicine swirl the current.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
