+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 12 17 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 340

Thread: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    14,976
    Thanked 8,638 times in 1,565 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Could we have a link for that info, please? Thanks.
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    This is research from Dr. Nancy Mullen, it is really interesting and pertinent to this thread. Thimerosal is found in most vaccines and is used as a preservative.



    Onawah, this info came to me via an email. Here is a link to her website which should provide you with this information and more.


    http://nancymullanmd.com/


    Oops, I now realize I spelled her last name wrong in my first post. It is Mullan, not Mullen.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (1st July 2016), onawah (28th June 2016), StandingWave (28th June 2016)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,635
    Thanks
    14,976
    Thanked 8,638 times in 1,565 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    It's a relief, in a way, for me, that the Glyphosate issue has now risen up in the public consciousness. I mentioned the use of it in wheat harvesting practices several times in recent years on forums and got either no response at all or a shake of the head.

    I spent 6 years as a seasonal tractor driver harvesting wheat and re sowing it on a big farm in northern England. That farmer was spraying Glyphosate on the wheat a week or so before the combine went in.

    After each season, I was usually ill. On 2 occasions, very ill. The guy in the cab of the combine was well protected unless he had a blockage or breakdown and actually had to climb out of the cab. I also had the extra exposure of being the one who reworked the soil ( with discs, not a plough ). They say glyphosate breaks down in the soil and quickly becomes harmless. I don't believe that.

    In the UK you have to have a spraying license to be able to operate spraying equipment. That sounds good, by implying that there are safe practices being adhered to. Actually, it only makes it less likely that the general public will ever hear the truth of what goes on.

    There other nasty organophosphates in farming. Sheep Dip is one that needs looking into.

    norman, I want you to know that I have shared your information about glyphosate and wheat. I just shared it at a Master Gardener event on Saturday. Keep sharing your information, you are being heard.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (1st July 2016), Holly Lindin (21st September 2016), onawah (28th June 2016), Sierra (29th July 2016), william r sanford72 (28th July 2016)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Thanks. Found it here: http://nancymullanmd.com/tag/hiv/
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Could we have a link for that info, please? Thanks.
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    This is research from Dr. Nancy Mullen, it is really interesting and pertinent to this thread. Thimerosal is found in most vaccines and is used as a preservative.



    Onawah, this info came to me via an email. Here is a link to her website which should provide you with this information and more.



    http://nancymullanmd.com/


    Oops, I now realize I spelled her last name wrong in my first post. It is Mullan, not Mullen.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (1st July 2016), Paul (28th June 2016), peterpam (1st July 2016), StandingWave (28th June 2016)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Re the lawsuit in CA. re mandatory vaccines:
    http://bolenreport.com/federal-court...orrow-morning/
    Long article, worth reading!
    Last edited by onawah; 1st July 2016 at 13:38.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    3(C)+me (6th July 2016), Foxie Loxie (1st July 2016), peterpam (1st July 2016), william r sanford72 (1st July 2016)

  9. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,128 times in 20,633 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Re the lawsuit in CA. re mandatory vaccines:
    http://bolenreport.com/federal-court...orrow-morning/
    Long article, worth reading!
    Yes - excellent news and article. I wish the lawsuit much success.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (1st July 2016), Jhonie (1st July 2016), norman (7th July 2016), onawah (2nd July 2016), william r sanford72 (7th July 2016)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    They interviewed me, then refused to publish the interview 7/5/16
    by Jon Rappoport
    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...the-interview/

    Quote They interviewed me, then refused to publish the interview

    Zika Fraud

    by Jon Rappoport

    July 5, 2016

    Some months ago, out of the blue, I was contacted by a major press outlet. I’m withholding the name of the outlet to protect my contact. I was asked, would I do an interview about Zika right away? I said yes. I was emailed a list of questions. I answered them.

    At length.

    The interview was relayed to editors.

    Then, nothing.

    Then, more nothing.

    And then they spiked the interview. Too hot to handle.

    They didn’t tell me they weren’t going to publish the interview. I had to ask. Then they said no.

    Here are my answers to the interview questions about Zika and related matters. I’m omitting the questions—again, to protect my contact.

    Answer One: Let’s start here. What proof is there that the Zika virus is causing birth defects in babies? I’ll tell you: no proof. Zero. So now the world is going to be subjected to a vaccine that protects them from a virus never proven to do harm? That’s utterly ridiculous. All vaccines carry risk and danger. They contain toxic chemicals and a variety of germs. And of course, vaccines can also be seeded with extra-dangerous substances, about which the public is told nothing. We have the case in Africa where a hormone, HCG, was secretly included in a vaccine given to women. The purpose was to cause miscarriages during future pregnancies. Researchers have been working on depopulation vaccines for decades. And now we have what? Governments are telling women not to get pregnant. This is not a coincidence.

    Answer Two: The World Health Organization (WHO) has become a global enforcement agency. Its major partner is the US Centers for Disease Control. These agencies dictate to governments all over the world. “You must deliver these vaccines. You must agree ‘this’ virus causes ‘that’ condition (even if it doesn’t). You must cooperate with us when we say a minor outbreak is a worldwide pandemic.” The basic program here is inducing fear and obedience in populations. I have been tracking and investigating so-called epidemics for many years, and they all turn out to be duds. But vaccines are sold and delivered. The authorities and their rabid support groups insist the vaccines are necessary, effective, and safe. That’s a demonstrable lie. They’re toxic. What people who live in poverty and desperation really need is not vaccines. They need the return of stolen land so they can grow their own nutritious food. They need basic sanitation. They need their contaminated water supplies cleaned up. They need their governments to stop giant corporations from using poisonous pesticides and flooding the environment with them. What we are looking at here is a massive operation to weaken, debilitate, sicken, and kill people—and not just poor people. Vaccines, pesticides; this is a form of chemical warfare.

    Answer Three: I’ve cited studies that show a connection between microcephaly and Roundup and atrazine, two toxic pesticides in heavy use around the world. The Zika virus is a distraction from the truth. It’s what intelligence agencies would call a cover story. It diverts attention from what is really going on. It protects major corporations.

    Answer Four: A January 27th Associated Press article out of Rio spelled it out. The Brazilian researchers went back and rechecked their original findings. So far, they’ve only been able to confirm 270 cases of microcephaly. And of those 270, they were only able to find the Zika virus in six cases! And the world is in a panic about an epidemic? Are you kidding me? And women are being told not to get pregnant? I call this Depopulation by Press Conference. It certainly isn’t science. How crazy can people get? “Well, we couldn’t find the virus except in six cases, but all women are at risk.” It’s a blatant operation aimed at women. [Note: since this interview, the updated Brazilian numbers are: 854 confirmed cases of microcephaly, and only 97 cases have “some relationship” to Zika.]

    Answer Five: Oxitec, which has funding from Bill Gates, has released genetically-engineered mosquitoes in Brazil and a few other places. These male insects mate with females who carry dengue fever, and the next generation doesn’t develop past the larval stage. That’s the theory. No human health studies concerning the effects of engineered mosquitoes have been done—which was exactly the case when GMO crops were first introduced. Instead, we just had assurances that everything was all right. Well, it wasn’t and it isn’t. The mosquito program carries great potential health risks. And of course, who of us can say with authority what exactly those engineered mosquitoes are transporting? If you have naïve trust that all is well, I have condos for sale on the moon.

    Answer Six: Behind the scenes, there will be pressure on the Brazilian researchers to change their tune and claim there are many more confirmed cases of microcephaly, all carrying the Zika virus. This will be a double lie, but it will be sold. There will be a rush to create a Zika vaccine. The campaign of fear will continue. Pesticide use will continue to be rampant, of course, especially on GMO crops. Many women will choose not to get pregnant. Governments will tell the people that all vaccines are absolutely necessary, and will use Zika as a case in point, driving home more fear. As an aside, during the Olympics, much bad publicity about Brazil will “leak” out—after all, it is one of the BRICS nations, and the Globalists must find a way to fracture and weaken that alliance in any way they can. Let me make one final statement. Everything I’m revealing in this interview would be hotly contested and criticized by representatives of the medical cartel. They, of course, speak down their noses at everyone, as they presume to carry great wisdom and authority. These representatives are professional liars. I don’t mind saying so. In the US, I have documented, from their own studies, that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That’s 2.25 million deaths per decade. I’m not making this up. It’s a fact, I can prove it, and I have proved it. My point is, how far would you trust such people?

    That was the end of the interview.

    The citation on the US medical system killing 225,000 Americans per year is: Journal of the American Medical System, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?”
    It’s obvious why the interview was never published.

    I received no requests to cut out certain parts or provide documented evidence for my assertions. All I got was silence.

    This is why I run my own media operation.

    This is why I created nomorefakenews.

    This is why I don’t wait for permission to publish.

    This is why I’m scornful of major media. This is why I’ve been able to continue my career as a reporter, while many mainstream reporters have gone into selling real estate or cars or shoes.

    The medical cartel is routinely destroying lives, and the press is aiding and abetting those crimes. Every day.

    Jon Rappoport

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Holly Lindin (21st September 2016), william r sanford72 (7th July 2016)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    The latest from Autism Action Network
    Quote Autism Action Network
    VAXXED is going viral. See VAXXED in your area
    More Info: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/theatrical-on-demand/

    Or bring VAXXED to where you live

    BRING VAXXED TO EVEN MORE CITIES!

    Following up on the 30 state, 62 city theatrical run, the Vaxxed team has just introduced a theatrical on demand program, (to run in conjunction with their ongoing “traditional” theatrical release) based on the incredible demand for Vaxxed to be seen NOW by YOU!

    Find a screening near you and reserve a ticket now:

    http://vaxxedthemovie.com/theatrical-on-demand/

    Working with GATHR, this program allows Vaxxed Movie Captains to set up one time screening events at multiplex theatre chains during specific dates and times and invite their networks to fill the theatre. A taped Q&A with the filmmakers will be played after each screening.

    Once enough people have reserved tickets and the event “tips” it is then “greenlit”. Peoples’ credit cards will not be charged until then.

    Gathr screenings are important because it allows the message of Vaxxed (CDC fraud over the mmr-autism study), and the voices of autism families, to be shared in smaller communities across the United States. In addition, the map widget numerically shows how much support Vaxxed has nationwide.

    In less than a week, there have already been 300 events scheduled and 10,000 tickets reserved!

    Let’s let the help hit the target of 500 registered events. 300 are already underway!

    If you don’t see a screening in your community, you can either click the “Notify me” button to be notified when one is reserved or volunteer to be a movie captain by selecting “Gathr It! Request a Screening. (Please only sign up to be a Movie Captain if there are no other screenings within 30 miles of your area AND if you have the time, energy, and passion to spearhead and promote your screening. If you don’t feel you’re up to it (and that’s ok!), it’s likely that someone will request a screening for your area sooner than later!)

    And please, join the Vaxxed movement: http://eepurl.com/bQWatj

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Ewan (6th July 2016), william r sanford72 (7th July 2016)

  15. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Temporary Restraining Order Denied for SB 277 Lawsuit–Plaintiffs Ready to File for a Preliminary Injunction
    http://www.edu4allnow.org/media-arti...ry-injunction/
    Quote SAN DIEGO, CA— California parents filed suit last week to challenge California’s new law, SB 277, which bars tens of thousands of children from attending any public or private school in the State of California. The suit requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the implementation of the law. It requested emergency relief because the law is already impacting students, such as students who receive special education services during the summer months. The TRO was denied yesterday in San Diego Federal Court.

    Lead attorney Jim Turner stated, “The court did not issue a ruling on its merits but denied the TRO for lack of notice to the State.”

    The plaintiffs will file a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, to prevent children from being denied school enrollment starting in this upcoming school year and continuing until this lawsuit is finally decided by the courts.

    “The plaintiffs are in this for the long haul,” said Robert T. Moxley, co-counsel. “This is just the beginning. We feel confident that SB 277 will ultimately be found unconstitutional, restoring the right for all children in California to receive a classroom education without discrimination.”
    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Re the lawsuit in CA. re mandatory vaccines:
    http://bolenreport.com/federal-court...orrow-morning/
    Long article, worth reading!
    Yes - excellent news and article. I wish the lawsuit much success.

  16. Link to Post #29
    Avalon Member Houman's Avatar
    Join Date
    31st March 2010
    Posts
    1,271
    Thanks
    1,138
    Thanked 9,808 times in 1,198 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    I once met an EPA scientist who was very aware of the damages done by glyphosate, vaccines, etc... what was really disturbing him is what is coming down the drain with the misuse of the Crispr-Cas9 gene editing... http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-ge...inning-1.19510
    Last edited by Houman; 7th July 2016 at 06:14.

  17. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Houman For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (8th July 2016), Ewan (11th July 2016), Paul (7th July 2016), Sierra (29th July 2016), william r sanford72 (7th July 2016)

  18. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    The Bolen Report: Fed Judge Denies SB 277 TRO – Wants More Info…

    Quote Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    This all happened yesterday, but I was traveling…

    San Diego Federal Judge Dana M. Sabraw denied the Ex Parte Temporary
    Restraining Order (TRO) presented by the Plaintiffs, so far, for two
    reasons – BOTH of which attorneys for the Plaintiffs are remedying as fast
    as possible.

    In essence, Judge Sabraw wants two things: (1) the Defendants’ attorneys
    involved in the hearing, and (2) A better, more specific example of why
    there is an emergency requiring a TRO in the first place.

    No big deal. Happens all of the time. Everything is still right on track,
    heading for a Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Everything that the Judge
    did was within the range of normal expectation.

    To read the entire article, click on:

    http://bolenreport.com/fed-judge-den...nfo/#more-3971


    If you wish to SUBSCRIBE to this Newsletter visit http://quackpotwatch.org/list/?p=subscribe

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Ewan (11th July 2016), william r sanford72 (11th July 2016)

  20. Link to Post #31
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Moving speech from Del Bigtree re Vaxxed, Santa Monica, 7/4/16, at the 2nd Annual Health Freedom Rally held in Santa Monica in front of City Hall.


  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    conk (11th July 2016), Houman (8th July 2016), Paul (8th July 2016), william r sanford72 (11th July 2016)

  22. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Judy Zimmerman, the Utah CDC whistleblower, who is exposing that CDC is gaming the autism numbers in their favor, gives her first interview.
    From: The Canary Party
    https://www.periscope.tv/w/1rmxPpkepkmxN

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    conk (11th July 2016), Ewan (11th July 2016), william r sanford72 (11th July 2016)

  24. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market
    This is related in that it has to do with corruption in the CDC
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rid=1569699334[/

    Quote By Dr. Mercola

    I've often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

    Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.1

    In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

    WHO's recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

    The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).2 According to PhillyVoice:3

    "The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).

    They allegedly show Bowman's multiple attempts to aid Malaspina's relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.

    According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — 'appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'"

    Soda Politics

    This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.'s book "Soda Politics." I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:4

    "[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper," adding the emails "suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an 'in' with a prominent CDC official.

    The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to 'eat less sugar' and 'disclose industry funding' recommendations.

    The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship ... This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials."

    Nestle's book reveals the soda industry is well aware of the connection between soda consumption and obesity and obesity-related diseases.

    Soda companies are by law required to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about vulnerabilities, and for the last decade Coca-Cola has been telling the SEC that obesity is the most significant threat to soda industry profits.

    In short, Coca-Cola knows that once the truth about soda's influence on obesity becomes fully recognized, their jig is up.

    Exposed CDC Official Steps Down

    For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold.

    U.S. soda sales have dropped 25 percent since 1998,5 no doubt due to successful public health advocacy, and this makes the current scandal all the more scandalous, as it's an attempt by a high-level health official to undo all the work that's already been done to protect the public health. According to USRTK:6

    "Alex Malaspina was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the ... CDC on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.

    The emails ... reveal that ... Bowman ... tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports ... "

    Surprisingly, Bowman had the good sense to immediately vacate her post once her betrayal of the public trust was exposed.

    According to The Huffington Post,7 Bowman "announced her immediate departure from the agency ... two days after it came to light that she had been offering guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate who was seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters."

    Perfect Example of Why Revolving Door to Industry Needs to Be Shut

    While Bowman didn't mention her public disgrace as a factor in her resignation, saying she'd made the decision to retire "late last month," her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman's dealings with Coca-Cola in an internal email to CDC staff.

    In it, Bauer states the "perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman's dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal," adding that the situation "serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don't want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn't do it."8

    Bowman's connections to Coca-Cola actually dates back decades,9 and it's anyone's guess as to how those ties may have slowed down the path to truth and influenced public health policy. She'd been at the CDC since 1992; she was appointed director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) in February 2013. But earlier in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola.

    This just goes to show the power of the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances. Public servants must choose the hard road of doing what is best for the public, not their former bosses and acquaintances.

    Few have that kind of integrity, it seems, and this case is a perfect example of why the door between private industry and public health and regulatory agencies needs to be more closely monitored. This is not a new problem and is pervasive in Washington for other industries. Yet the U.S. Congress and Senate continually fail to pass legislation to address this glaring loophole that decimates public health.

    Philadelphia Imposes Soda Tax and Other Bad News for Big Soda

    This scandal comes on the heels of a number of blows against the soda industry. Aside from WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan announcing soda is a key contributor to child obesity and suggesting restrictions on sugary beverages, Philadelphia recently decided to implement a soda tax to cut consumption.

    Mexico imposed a soda tax in 2014, and San Francisco requires ads for sugary drinks to include a health warning as of last year. Many cities around the world are also considering similar measures to restrict soda sales. However, the stance against sugar taken by WHO was perhaps considered one of the most serious. In a June 2015 email to Bowman, Malaspina expresses worry about negative publicity related to sugar-rich products and European soda tax plans.

    Malaspina says WHO's actions can have "significant negative consequences on a global basis," and that "the threat to our business is serious." He also notes that WHO officials "do not want to work with industry," adding that, "something must be done." In response to Malaspina's request for suggestions on how to get an audience with WHO, Bowman replies that "someone with Gates or 'Bloomberg people' may have close connections that could open a door at WHO," USRTK writes.

    "She also suggests he try someone at PEPFAR program, a U.S. government-backed program that makes HIV/AIDS drugs available through the sub-Saharan Africa. She tells him that 'WHO is key to the network.' She writes that she 'will be in touch about getting together.'"

    Clearly, the soda industry is struggling to stay alive. But at what cost should they be allowed to promote their business? It's equally clear that the price for their unrestricted success is disease and death of its consumers, which is why these kinds of backdoor dealings are so unpalatable.

    Without Conflicts of Interest, Could Junk Food Industry Survive?In 2013, I interviewed Michele Simon, who has practiced public health law for nearly 20 years, fighting corporate tactics that deceive and manipulate you about health. Last year, she released a report that revealed disturbing ties between the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) — considered a premier source of nutritional science — and the primary purveyors of obesity and chronic ill health.

    ASN is sponsored by 30 different companies, including Coca-Cola, Kellogg's, Monsanto and the Sugar Association, just to mention a few, each of which pays $10,000 a year in return for "print and online exposure, annual meeting benefits, and first choice to sponsor educational sessions, grants, awards and other opportunities as they arise." As noted by Simon:

    "In other words, food, beverage, supplement, biotech and pharmaceutical industry leaders are able to purchase cozy relationships with the nation's top nutrition researchers."

    Junk food purveyors gain even more influence by sponsoring educational sessions at various conferences and annual meetings, and featuring speakers that represent the industry. ASN's ties are particularly problematic since they also publish three academic journals, including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN).

    These ties can "taint scientific objectivity, negatively impact the organization's policy recommendations, and result in industry-friendly research and messaging that is shared with nutrition professionals and the general public alike," according to Simon.

    Obesity researcher David Allison, Ph.D. tops the list of those with the most conflicts. Allison serves on the editorial board of the AJCN, ASN's flagship publication, even though he has ties to PepsiCo, the Sugar Association, World Sugar Research Organization, Red Bull, Kellogg, Mars, Campbell Soup and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group.

    According to Simon, "having Allison in such a critical gatekeeper role demonstrates how industry can potentially influence even the science that gets published."

    'Just Say No' to Soda

    "Just Say No" was a slogan created by first lady Nancy Reagan. The "Just Say No" advertising campaign against recreational drug use was prevalent through the 1980s. Today, the same slogan would be appropriate to discourage soda consumption, and a whole lot easier to implement as well.

    If you struggle with weight or chronic health issues, replacing soda and other sweet drinks, including fruit juices, with pure water could be one of the best things you could possibly do. Granted, other dietary changes are likely needed as well, but for many, ditching soda can go a long way.

    If you crave some flavor, try adding some lime or lemon juice to still or sparkling water. Tea is another option. Just avoid adding sugar, and steer clear of bottled varieties as they're usually loaded with added sugars. Ditto for so-called "designer water" like Vitamin Water.

    If you find it difficult to quit, don't be discouraged. Many are indeed addicted to soda. To break free, be sure to address the emotional component of your food cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). A version referred to as Turbo Tapping tends to be particularly useful for eliminating soda addiction in a short amount of time.

    If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion.

    Remember, sweetened beverages, whether sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), naturally occurring fructose or artificial sweeteners are among the worst culprits in the fight against obesity and related health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. Ditching ALL of these types of beverages is a significant first step toward reducing your risk for chronic health problems and weight gain.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (12th July 2016), william r sanford72 (12th July 2016)

  26. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Amended SB 277 Complaint Filed; Preliminary Injunction Hearing August 12
    http://www.edu4allnow.org/news-release/130/
    Quote SAN DIEGO, CA— Yesterday in federal court, an Amended Complaint was filed against California’s new mandatory vaccination law, SB 277. After E4A’s lawsuit was filed July 1st, dozens of parents came forward to share stories of discrimination and oppression. Eleven additional plaintiffs have joined the suit, and the Amended Complaint pleads sixteen counts — infringement of state and federal constitutional rights, and violations of state and federal law, including statutes that protect disabled children. Sworn testimony of egregious conduct underlies a Preliminary Injunction motion, filed today and scheduled for hearing in federal court on August 12, before children return to school.

    The primary focus of the Amended Complaint is disregard for the fundamental right of public education under the California Constitution. The Plaintiffs state,

    “The California Constitution requires the State to ensure educational opportunities for every child and vests the State with ultimate responsibility for the public elementary and secondary school system. The State has a non-delegable duty to ensure that no student is denied the opportunity to learn. The California Constitution thus places the responsibility for providing education and educational equality to all of California’s children squarely on the shoulders of the State. While the State may elect to delegate some responsibility to school districts, it is ultimately the State’s responsibility to ensure that all California School children receive a basic education.”

    The strongly worded Amended Complaint depicts an irrational, punitive, and unconstitutional scheme. The pleading reveals the rushed and shoddy passage of SB 277 through the Legislature, where children with vaccine personal belief exemptions were scapegoats for the famous Disneyland measles outbreak they did not cause. The Amended Complaint depicts doctors too intimidated to write medical exemptions, despite Governor Brown’s signing statement endorsing their discretion. It reveals the impractical nature and economic hardship of homeschooling for many families, and a lack of guidance from the California Department of Education and Board of Education. It shows how schools are left on their own to decide if disabled students must be vaccinated to receive classroom special education.

    Plaintiffs’ attorney Robert Moxley said, “More parents come forward every day. We may be just looking at the tip of the iceberg with these first set of plaintiffs.” He added, “The California Department of Education’s website touts ‘a world-class education for all students, from early childhood to adulthood.’ But there is nothing world class about removing healthy children from school. Maybe that is why we have so many parents coming forward.”

    About Education 4 All: The Education 4 All (E4A) Foundation, founded in June 2016, seeks to redeem California’s promise of equal education for all children.

    Contribute to the suit HERE http://www.edu4allnow.org/donate/

    Or mail gifts to: E4A. 12463 Rancho Bernardo Rd, #525, San Diego, CA 92128-2143

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (16th July 2016)

  28. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    SB 277 – First Amended Complaint For Declaratory, Injunctive And Other Relief…
    http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-first-...nctive-relief/

    (This is LONG, but it's THRILLING!

    By Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    The Starting Point…
    )
    [QUOTE]SB 277 – First Amended Complaint For Declaratory, Injunctive And Other Relief…
    Keeping Our Healthy Children in School…
    By Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    The Starting Point…

    On July 1st, 2016 a lawsuit was filed in a San Diego Federal Court asking the court to declare infamous California Senate Bill 277 unconstitutional, and prevent its enforcement. It was an excellent read. Its filing compared, in war terms, to the June 6th, 1944 “D-Day” Invasion of Normandy. The “good guys” were on the beach beginning the counterattack against the forces of evil.

    The news traveled across Planet Earth like a soothing spring rain.

    Then, yesterday and today, July 14th and 15th, 2016, new filings are appearing starting with what is called, simply enough, a “- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF.” And, although I liked the first filing VERY MUCH, and said so.

    I like these legal filings even more.

    Before I show them to you, and explain, in simple terms, what is actually going on there are TWO important points I need to make. They are::

    (1) This whole event, these legal actions, and all of the investigations and sorting of material leading to all of this legal action is the work of a giant, secret, army who managed to work quietly, and unobtrusively, gathering and sorting, making new alliances, for the express purposes surrounding the issues so carefully, and powerfully, explained in the legal papers. Look around. There they are. There YOU are…

    Here WE are… The doors are open. Come and play.

    (2) So MUCH is happening with this First Amended Complaint that I am going to break the explanation of it all into separate parts – so, after this article, there is MUCH MORE good stuff coming. You WILL love this….

    What’s New and Different?


    (1) Where in the first filing there were ten Plaintiffs, now there twenty-one. I will show you every one of them. You can read, in detail, why each of them are standing up for the rest of humanity. If you see them on the street, look them in the eye, smile at them, say “Thank You,” then hug them.

    (2) Where in the first filing there were ten Defendants, there still are…

    (3) Where in the first filing there were six Claims, now there are sixteen.

    (4) Where in the first filing there was a “Statutory Schemes” section which explained the details of the case, now there is a much-enlarged section called “General Allegations.” Take the time to read it word-for-word.

    Why an Amended Complaint?

    Happens all of the time. My guess is that, here, the original Complaint generated a tidal wave of interest which, in itself, generated more Plaintiff issues, sources of information, cooperation, and resources for the legal team. From here I can see the groundswell – and I like it very much…

    So, Let’s Get Started With Important Details…

    Take your time reading what’s going on – for the people that put this together GET the issues…



    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 3:16-cv-01715-DMS-BGS Plaintiffs complaint of Defendants and allege:

    Case Introduction…

    (1) More than 45 years ago, the California Supreme Court recognized that education is “the bright hope for entry of the poor and oppressed into the mainstream of American society,” Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 609 (1971), and that “society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.” Id. at 606 (citation omitted).

    (2) But today, as a result of the enactment of Senate Bill (“SB”) 277, the State of California denies tens of thousands of children access to its schools and daycares and relegates them to the separate-and-unequal position of learning in isolation, in permanent quarantine.

    (3) In the midst of the media frenzy surrounding a measles outbreak at Disneyland, at the intersection of irrational panic and special-interest politics, the California Legislature enacted SB 277 to abolish personal belief exemptions (“PBEs”) from California’s school vaccination requirements.

    (4) In the name of public health, SB 277 permanently bars from all public and private schools and daycares any child who, absent a physician-provided medical exemption, is not fully vaccinated with 30 to 38 doses of vaccines for ten different illnesses ranging from generally mild childhood illnesses like measles and chickenpox, to a blood-borne disease like hepatitis B, to a non-communicable infection like tetanus.

    (5) The justification for permanently barring children with PBEs from school and daycare has been the desire to keep schools “safe from dangerous contagions.” The unfortunate mischaracterization of children with PBEs as contagious and dangerous vectors of disease has resulted in extreme bias and prejudice against thousands of innocent children who are, in actuality, neither infectious nor contagious. Nor are these children capable of transmitting diseases they do not have. Yet SB 277 forever exiles them from schools and daycares, in a dramatic departure from California’s long-standing history of unwavering protection of every child’s right to a free, equal and public education.

    (6) Education is a fundamental right in California, guaranteed to all children by the State Constitution. Cal. Const., art. IX, §§ 1 and 5. Indeed, “education is so important that the state has made it compulsory.” Serrano, 5 Cal.3d at 610 (citation omitted). The California Supreme Court minced no words when it declared that “[i]n light of the public interest in conserving the resource of young minds, [courts] must unsympathetically examine any action of a public body which has the effect of depriving children of the opportunity to obtain an education.” Id. at 607 (citation omitted).

    (7) Additionally, both State and federal laws prohibit discrimination against and disparate treatment of children based on suspect classifications such as race, religion, national origin, disability or socioeconomic status. SB 277 is in irreconcilable conflict with the aforementioned State and federal laws. Therefore, to preserve and protect their rights under those laws, Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §1983; the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12132, et seq.; and Article 9, §§ 1 and 5, Article 1, §§ 7(a) and 15, and Article 4, § 16(a) of the California Constitution, to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, all enforcement of SB 277 and any other California statutes, regulations, policies or practices that seek to exclude children from school.

    Those Incredible Plaintiffs…

    (1) Plaintiff Ana Whitlow resides with her husband and minor sons B.A.W. and D.M.F-W. in San Diego, San Diego County. Ms. Whitlow’s children B.A.W. and D.M.F-W. are legally required to attend school. Ms. Whitlow and her husband have chosen to selectively vaccinate B.A.W. and D.M.F-W. in the interest of their health and well-being and to avoid vaccines that offend their religious beliefs by virtue of certain ingredients including aborted fetal cells.

    D.M.F-W. is twelve years old and due to advance to the seventh grade in the fall. As a condition for enrollment in the seventh grade, D.M.F-W. is required to show proof of vaccination for pertussis (whooping cough). Pertussis vaccination is not available separately and is given in a single syringe with the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines, called DTaP or Tdap.

    To determine whether D.M.F-W. needs the vaccine, Ms. Whitlow requested a blood antibody test to check D.M.F-W.’s antibodies for whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria. Laboratory testing based on a June 21, 2016 blood draw confirmed that D.M.F-W. has immunity to all three diseases, eliminating the need to vaccinate him. Notwithstanding his demonstrated immunity to all three diseases, D.M.F-W’s school has refused to allow D.M.F-W. to enroll in the seventh grade unless he receives the required vaccine. Ms. Whitlow sees no justification for the school’s demand that D.M.F-W. submit to a vaccination for diseases to which he has lab-confirmed immunity.

    Like all medical procedures, vaccines carry risk of adverse reactions and Ms. Whitlow does not wish to subject D.M.F-W. to a medical procedure that will confer no additional benefit to him.

    Ms. Whitlow seeks injunctive relief requiring the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California to admit D.M.F-W. into the seventh grade and not deprive him of the opportunity to continue his education. Ms. Whitlow’s son B.A.W. is five years old and eligible to attend kindergarten. Ms. Whitlow observed B.A.W. experience adverse reactions to vaccination, including seizure-like spells, which B.A.W.’s physicians do not attribute to the vaccines, precluding a medical exemption for B.A.W. Ms. Whitlow is concerned that further vaccination will subject B.A.W. to the risk of adverse side effects, including seizures.

    Ms. Whitlow also objects to injecting B.A.W. with vaccines derived from aborted fetal cells, including aborted fetal lung fibroblasts. If PBEs were available, Ms. Whitlow would obtain a religious exemption to enroll B.A.W. in kindergarten. Ms. Whitlow’s children do not carry any of the diseases for which vaccination is mandated, yet they are being permanently barred from school. Ms. Whitlow seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission to B.A.W. into Ocean Beach Elementary School, operated by the San Diego Unified School District.

    (2) Plaintiff Erik Nicolaisen lives with his wife and minor children A.W.N. (age 5), R.J.N. (age 3) and U.M.N (age 10 months), in Studio City, Los Angeles County. At the age of six, all of Mr. Nicolaisen’s children will be legally required to attend school. Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife attempted to enroll A.W.N. into kindergarten at Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District. On June 17, 2016, the principal of Carpenter Elementary School informed Mr. Nicolaisen that A.W.N. cannot enroll in kindergarten without proof of full vaccination which, in A.W.N.’s case would require administration of more than 20 vaccine doses in less than a two-month period.

    Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife have chosen to selectively vaccinate A.W.N. in the interest of A.W.N’s health and wellbeing, and in the interest of avoiding certain vaccines, including those produced using aborted fetal tissue such as fetal lung fibroblasts, given that Mr. Nicolaisen’s wife opposes abortion. Without a PBE, A.W.N. cannot attend school, which he is legally required to do when he turns six years old. Similarly, A.W.N.’s younger siblings cannot attend daycare now or school once they reach school age. Without the ability to enroll their children into school, Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife face the options of giving up successful careers and risking loss of income and employer provided health and life insurance, relocation to Oregon, or coerced abandonment of their religious convictions and health-related misgivings about certain vaccines.

    Mr. Nicolaisen’s children do not carry any of the diseases for which vaccination is mandated, yet they are being permanently barred from school. Mr. Nicolaisen seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying A.W.N. enrollment into Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District or any other school.

    (3) Plaintiff Dene Schultze-Alva is a Civil Engineer and Doctor of Chiropractic. She resides with her husband, and minor daughters S.G.A. (age 8) and S.M.A. (age 3) in Sierra Madre, Los Angeles County. Years ago, the day after receiving routine childhood vaccinations, Dr. Schultze-Alva’s stepdaughter suffered convulsions, a high fever, lethargy and seizure-like shaking. This experience and her own chiropractic training have caused Dr. Schultze-Alva to exercise caution in attend school. Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife attempted to enroll A.W.N. into kindergarten at Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

    On June 17, 2016, the principal of Carpenter Elementary School informed Mr. Nicolaisen that A.W.N. cannot enroll in kindergarten without proof of full vaccination which, in A.W.N.’s case would require administration of more than 20 vaccine doses in less than a two-month period. Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife have chosen to selectively vaccinate A.W.N. in the interest of A.W.N’s health and wellbeing, and in the interest of avoiding certain vaccines, including those produced using aborted fetal tissue such as fetal lung fibroblasts, given that Mr. Nicolaisen’s wife opposes abortion.

    Without a PBE, A.W.N. cannot attend school, which he is legally required to do when he turns six years old. Similarly, A.W.N.’s younger siblings cannot attend daycare now or school once they reach school age. Without the ability to enroll their children into school, Mr. Nicolaisen and his wife face the options of giving up successful careers and risking loss of income and employer provided health and life insurance, relocation to Oregon, or coerced abandonment of their religious convictions and health-related misgivings about certain vaccines.

    Mr. Nicolaisen’s children do not carry any of the diseases for which vaccination is mandated, yet they are being permanently barred from school. Mr. Nicolaisen seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying A.W.N. enrollment into Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District or any other school.

    (4) Plaintiff Nicole Andrade resides near Loomis, Placer County, with her husband and family, including her minor daughter I.G.A. I.G.A. is due to enter the seventh grade in the fall at Franklin Elementary School operated by the Loomis Union School District. Ms. Andrade has received two notices of school expulsion for I.G.A. for noncompliance with SB 277, even though I.G.A. is legally required to attend school.

    Ms. Andrade is religiously opposed to vaccines manufactured from aborted fetal cell lines, having fully vaccinated her oldest child before she became aware that certain vaccines, including the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine, are manufactured using cells derived from intentionally aborted fetuses. Ms. Andrade has taken up in her prayers the question of whether to vaccinate, and believes that God would want her pro-life family to wait for more pure and safe vaccines, before vaccinating I.G.A. again. I.G.A. enjoys learning in a classroom and wants to continue going to school. I.G.A. does not carry any of the diseases for which vaccination is mandated, yet she is being permanently barred from school. Ms. Andrade seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying advancement of I.G.A. into the seventh grade at Franklin Elementary School, operated by the Loomis Union School District.

    (5) Plaintiff Brianna Owens resides in Petrolia, Humboldt County. She is the parent of four children, two of whom are impacted by SB 277 in the 2016-2017 school year. K.R.O.-R. is currently being denied entry into the seventh grade and J.S.W.S. is currently being denied entry into kindergarten at Mattole Elementary School operated by the Mattole Unified School District.

    Ms. Owens has a family history of autoimmune disease, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome. At the age of 26, Ms. Owens suffered convulsions, hallucinations, a fever of 103.4 degrees, vomiting, headache, jaw locking, muscle tightness and loss of consciousness after receiving a vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (Tdap). The doctor who administered the vaccine insisted that it was impossible for her to have a reaction to the vaccine. Days later, another physician who treated Ms. Owens confirmed that Ms. Owens’ symptoms had been the result of a severe reaction to the Tdap vaccine and advised Mr. Owens never to take that vaccine again.

    Ms. Owens’ reaction is listed in the manufacturer’s product insert as a potential sequelae of the vaccine. Ms. Owens’ daughter K.R.O.-R. had an adverse reaction to the DTaP (whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria vaccine for pediatric use), which K.R.O.-R.’s pediatrician said was a “normal” response to the vaccine.

    Following K.R.O.-R.’s reaction and her own severe adverse reaction to the Tdap vaccination, coupled with her family’s medical history, Ms. Owen became hesitant to continue vaccinating her children. She has requested testing to ensure that her children will not have severe adverse reactions to vaccination but no such testing has been provided by her physicians.

    She has also requested medical exemptions for her children based on her own severe adverse vaccine reaction and family medical history, as allowed by SB 277. Her pediatrician declined to write medical exemptions for K.R.O.-R. and J.S.W.S., because he had received a “special class” where he was told that to qualify for a medical exemption her children would have to have a “documented anaphylactic reaction” to a particular vaccine and then may be eligible for an exemption only for that particular vaccine.

    Ms. Owens’ children face immediate and imminent harm, as they are facing permanent denial of their right to attend school in the fall of 2016, although they are legally required to attend school. Ms. Owens seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children K.R.O.-R. and J.S.W.S. into the seventh grade and kindergarten, respectively, at Mattole Elementary School operated by the Mattole Unified School District.

    (6) Plaintiff Veronica Delgado resides with her family in the City of Madera, Madera County. She is the parent of seven children. Two of Ms. Delgado’s children have special needs and receive special education services pursuant to Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”). Both of Ms. Delgado’s children with special needs had adverse reactions to vaccines, although Ms. Delgado did not recognize their conditions as vaccine reactions at the time they occurred.

    Ms. Delgado followed the SB 277 legislative process and understood that children with IEPs would be exempt from SB 277’s full vaccination requirements. Ms. Delgado’s child A.N.D. attends Howard School, operated by the Madera School District. Despite requiring special education services and having an IEP, A.N.D. is currently being denied enrollment into the seventh grade. Ms. Delgado has had extensive discussions with school personnel regarding A.N.D.’s special education needs under his IEP but the school continues to refuse to allow A.N.D. to enroll, although he is legally required to attend school.

    In her discussions with school personnel, Ms. Delgado became aware that other children with IEPs are being denied enrollment into Howard School. A.N.D. has a younger brother with an IEP who is currently enrolling in the sixth grade. When A.N.D.’s younger brother reaches the seventh grade next fall, he will also be excluded from school, even though his special needs are more extensive than A.N.D.’s and his IEP requires the provision of a myriad special education services.

    Ms. Delgado cannot homeschool her two boys with special needs, as well as care for her entire family. She will need to first acquire the skills needed to teach her children in the seventh grade and beyond. Ms. Delgado’s son A.N.D. faces imminent harm as he is being denied school enrollment and access to special education services in the fall of 2016. Ms. Delgado seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children into school under SB 277.

    (7) Plaintiff Melanie Sunukjian resides with her minor daughter A.L.S. in Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County. A.L.S. is ready to enter the seventh grade at Providence Junior High School, operated by the Santa Barbara Unified School District. A.L.S. is vaccinated, but is required to have a Tdap (whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria) vaccine to enroll in the seventh grade. Ms. Sunukjian is concerned for the health of her daughter and has sought to have her daughter medically exempted from the Tdap that SB 277 requires A.L.S. to receive. A.L.S. has numerous diagnosed food sensitivities and allergies and a family history of autoimmune disease.

    Despite these medical concerns, which Ms. Sunukjian believes are legitimate justification for a medical exemption, her doctors are unwilling to consider a medical exemption. A.L.S. does not carry pertussis or diphtheria, yet she is being denied enrollment into the seventh grade and will be denied entry into school in the fall, even though she is legally required to attend school. Ms. Sunukjian seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of A.L.S. to any private school and public school in the State of California.

    (8) Plaintiff Dawn Saunders is a widow with three children, residing in Placerville, El Dorado County. Ms. Saunders’ daughter K.S. is due to enter the seventh grade in the fall and is legally required to attend school. K.S. has an IEP as a result of a traumatic brain injury she suffered in 2014. Under the IEP, K.S. receives special education services, including speech and cognitive therapy. K.S. is eligible for meals in school.

    Despite her disability and her IEP, K.S. is being denied enrollment into the seventh grade. K.S. is also currently being denied her extended school year services, resulting in severe hardship to Ms. Saunders, both personally and financially. Moreover, homeschooling is not meeting K.S. many educational and therapeutic needs. Ms. Saunders cannot continue to homeschool K.S., work the full time job she needs to support her family, and provide K.S. with the special education services she needs.

    K.S. is unable to obtain a medical exemption through the MediCal provider network and is prohibited under threat of losing MediCal health benefits from seeking to obtain a medical exemption from another source, which Ms. Saunders cannot afford in any event. Ms. Saunders and K.S. are experiencing severe hardship and imminent harm because of SB 277. K.S. stands to lose her right to an education, her special education services, her school-provided meals, and her right to attend school with her non-disabled peers.

    Ms. Saunders faces the cruel illusion of choice between subjecting her already-disabled child to the risks of vaccination or loss of employment and income to homeschool her child. Ms. Saunders seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her child and refusing classroom instruction under her IEP, in the public and private schools in the State of California.

    (9) Plaintiff Holly Crain resides with her husband and two children G.J.C. and B.G.C. in El Cajon, San Diego County. Ms. Crain has elected to follow an alternative vaccination schedule with her son G.J.C., who has previously experienced an adverse reaction to vaccination. Despite G.J.C.’s adverse reaction to vaccination, Ms. Crain has been advised summarily by her children’s pediatrician that her children do not qualify for medical exemptions under California Health & Safety Code section 120370.

    Ms. Crain also holds sincere religious beliefs in her objection to the use of aborted fetal cells in the manufacture of certain vaccines. Ms. Crain’s children are healthy, they see their pediatrician regularly for checkups, and they carry no infectious diseases. Yet with the passage of SB 277, her children are barred from preschool and daycare for the 2016-2017 school year.


    Ms. Crain is being constructively forced out of work by SB 277, causing hardship to her family. Ms. Crain seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children to every private school and public school in the State of California for which they are otherwise eligible.

    (10) Plaintiff Tanya Sutton is a single mother residing with her son K.J.S. (age 5) in Chula Vista, San Diego County. K.J.S. currently attends Kindercare Daycare in Chula Vista and is eligible for kindergarten in the fall. Both Ms. Sutton and K.J.S.’s father work full-time jobs. Regular school and afterschool care is necessary to allow Ms. Sutton to continue working at her job to provide for K.J.S.

    In March of 2016, Ms. Sutton attempted to enroll K.J.S. into kindergarten for fall, 2016. K.J.S. has a medical exemption from his doctor, stating that his doctor does not feel vaccination is safe for K.J.S. When Ms. Sutton presented K.J.S.’s enrollment package, the school nurse questioned and refused to accept K.J.S.’s medical exemption. After a heated discussion between Ms. Sutton and the school nurse in front of other school personnel and parents, the school nurse said the medical exemption “was fine,” but after extensive follow-up and run-around, Ms. Sutton learned that the school nurse had flagged K.J.S.’s file because of his medical exemption, causing K.J.S. to miss out on placement opportunities at four different schools. K.J.S. is currently not enrolled in any kindergarten program due to the school nurse’s unlawful rejection of the medical exemption provided by K.J.S.’s physician.

    Ms. Sutton stands to lose her job and experience severe financial hardship because K.J.S. is being denied enrollment into kindergarten. Ms. Sutton seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from discriminating against K.J.S. on the basis of his medical exemption to vaccination.

    (11) Plaintiff Suzette Loy resides with her husband and children in Vita, San Diego County. Ms. Loy has two children K.R.L. (age 4) and J.B.L. K.R.L. is selectively vaccinated and is currently being denied admission to kindergarten because she does not have all of the more than 30 vaccine doses required for kindergarten enrollment. Ms. Loy’s oldest child experienced an adverse reaction to vaccination. Ms. Loy wants all of the recommended vaccines for her other children, but wishes to follow a slow and cautious vaccination schedule in light of her older son’s reaction.

    Her children’s pediatricians have denied her an alternative vaccination schedule that would allow her to carefully select the times for vaccine administration, and allow her to carefully monitor her children for potential vaccine injury along the way.

    At great hardship to her family, Ms. Loy is forced to homeschool her daughter K.R.L., instead of sending her to kindergarten this year. K.R.L. is healthy and is not infected with and does not carry any of the illnesses for which vaccination is required, yet she is permanently barred from attending school.

    Ms. Loy seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children to every private school and public school in the State of California for which they are otherwise eligible.

    (See the second half of the article in the next post. I am copying the whole thing here on the forum because it's hard to read in the format at the link.)
    Last edited by onawah; 16th July 2016 at 04:03.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (16th July 2016), william r sanford72 (16th July 2016)

  30. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Continued: SB 277 – First Amended Complaint For Declaratory, Injunctive And Other Relief…
    http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-first-...nctive-relief/

    Quote (12) Plaintiff Adriane Hoeft lives with her two minor sons, O.C. and F.C. in Roseville, Placer County. O.C. became impacted by Transverse Myelitis, leaving him with flaccid paralysis from the waist down after a round of vaccinations when he was 17 months old. O.C. requires a wheelchair. Ms. Hoeft will never vaccinate O.C. again.

    When O.C. suffered his vaccine injury and became paralyzed, Ms. Hoeft believed that vaccine injuries were extremely rare – one in a million. Four months after O.C. became paralyzed from his vaccinations, his younger brother F.C. was born. Ms. Hoeft took F.C. to the doctor for routine vaccinations. Immediately following his two-month vaccines, F.C. became very weak, sick and somber for two days. Fearing a repeat of what happened to O.C. and after beginning to research vaccines, Ms. Hoeft stopped vaccinating F.C. Both O.C. and F.C. are currently in elementary school in the first grade and transitional kindergarten, respectively.

    They both have PBEs which will be grandfathered until they reach the seventh grade. At seventh grade, however, both O.C. and F.C. will be permanently expelled from school and denied an education. O.C. has an IEP and, according to Amendment (h) of SB 277, should be exempt from vaccination requirements.

    However, the Roseville City School District has announced publicly that regardless of Amendment (h), children with IEPs will not be allowed to attend school with other children. O.C. and F.C. are not infected with and do not carry any of the illnesses for which vaccines are required, yet they will be permanently barred from school and denied their right to an education upon reaching seventh grade.

    Ms. Hoeft seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children to every private school and public school in the State of California for which they are otherwise eligible.

    (13) Plaintiff Jennifer Kennedy resides with her husband and three children, C.E.K. (age 14); A.G.K. (age 11) and E.L.K. (age 7), in Pasadena, Los Angeles County. Ms. Kennedy’s family history includes adverse reactions to vaccination. A.G.K. and E.L.K. are selectively vaccinated, following a careful risk/benefit analysis. Both A.G.K. and E.L.K. currently have PBEs on file with their schools, which will expire when they reach the seventh grade. A.G.K. is entering the sixth grade at Sierra Madre Middle School. A.G.K. and E.L.K. have not been able to obtain a medical exemption to vaccination from their pediatrician.

    Ms. Kennedy objects to the use of aborted fetal cell lines in any vaccines, based on her pro-life religious beliefs. Ms. Kennedy’s children are healthy. They have no infectious diseases and they are not infected with or capable of transmitting any of the illnesses for which vaccination is required under SB 277, yet upon reaching the seventh grade, they will be permanently barred from school even though they are legally required to attend school.

    Ms. Kennedy seeks injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children to every private school and public school in the State of California for which they are otherwise eligible.

    (14) Plaintiff Michelle Veneziano, DO, is a physician in Mill Valley, Marin County. She graduated from Western University of Health Sciences in 2000 and completed her residency in family practice in 2003. In her medical school and postgraduate training, Dr. Veneziano received only cursory instruction about vaccine science and practice and was not educated regarding the potential for adverse events. Dr. Veneziano recalls being taught that adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. She was not trained in recognizing, treating or reporting adverse reactions to vaccines.

    Dr. Veneziano is the mother of G.S.V., age 11, entering sixth grade in San Geronimo Valley Middle School in Marin County. G.S.V. is vaccinated with all of the vaccines on California’s school vaccination schedule, except for hepatitis B, a blood-borne illness for which G.S.V. is not at risk. To advance to the seventh grade in the 2017-2018 school year, G.S.V. will need a Tdap vaccine. G.S.V. suffers from eczema, gastrointestinal distress and autoimmune disease. Dr. Veneziano has recently begun reading books and scientific studies about vaccines and has identified G.S.V.’s ailments as likely sequelae to receiving multiple rounds of childhood vaccines.

    Dr. Veneziano has only recently learned about vaccine injuries, the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Like most physicians, Dr. Veneziano’s medical training focused only on the benefits of vaccination, without acknowledgment of any risks.

    Based upon her recent research into the scientific literature and books about vaccines and their benefits and risks, including recent studies by the FDA and CDC about the acellular pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, Dr. Veneziano has determined that she will not give G.S.V. the Tdap vaccine required for G.S.V. to advance to the seventh grade. According to the most current research from the FDA, CDC and various independent researchers, the acellular pertussis vaccine given in the United States does not prevent pertussis infection or transmission and instead merely masks symptoms of the disease, creating asymptomatic carriers which is not only not beneficial, but may be detrimental to public health.

    Dr. Veneziano is also concerned about some of the ingredients used in the manufacture of the Tdap vaccine and the risks associated with injection of those ingredients. Dr. Veneziano has decided to forego the Tdap vaccine for G.S.V. both to avoid the risk of worsening G.S.V.’s autoimmune status and to avoid G.S.V. becoming infected with whooping cough asymptomatically and unknowingly infecting a susceptible person with whooping cough. As a medical professional, Dr. Veneziano should be able to make healthcare decisions for G.S.V. without being deprived of the fundamental right for G.S.V. to receive a school-based education.

    Dr. Veneziano seeks injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of from denying admission of G.S.V. to every private school and public school in the State of California for which she is otherwise eligible.

    (15) Plaintiff Chanda Murray resides with her six children, including her daughter S.R.M. and her son E.D.M., and her common law husband, in Sacramento, Sacramento County. S.R.M. should be entering twelfth grade at the Twin Rivers School but Ms. Murray has received written notice that the school may refuse to honor S.R.M.’s PBE, claiming that she needs DTaP and chicken pox boosters.

    Twelfth grade is not a checkpoint year and there is no justification to revoke S.R.M.’s PBE and exclude her from her final year of school with her friends, jeopardizing S.R.M.’s future educational and work prospects.

    E.D.M., who also has a PBE, should be a rising seventh grader at Foothill Ranch Middle School but Ms. Murray has been informed that he will not be able to attend school there this fall. Nor can he attend Westside Preparatory Charter School, recommended by his teacher and principal, because he is not fully vaccinated. E.D.M. is an excellent student and athlete. If homeschooled, will be denied the opportunity to participate in the community sports leagues in which he has excelled because the leagues require proof of enrollment in public school.

    Ms. Murray’s obtained PBEs for her children, including S.R.M. and E.D.M., because her second son suffered a severe vaccine reaction at the time of his six-month vaccinations. That child suffered an Acute Disseminating Encephalomyelitis (ADEM). He is non-verbal and has significant physical and developmental challenges, including severe brain injury and visual and hearing impairments. Ms. Murray was able to obtain a medical exemption for that child based on his injury.

    When SB277 was passed, she tried to obtain medical exemptions for her younger children based on their sibling’s adverse reaction but their physician refused to provide an exemption, telling Ms. Murray that immediate family history of vaccine injury is not a valid reason for exemption. If Ms. Murray has to homeschool her seventh and twelfth graders, she will have to forego employment. Neither S.R.M. nor E.D.M. carries the diseases for which the schools are claiming they need to be vaccinated and they will be denied entry to school in the fall, even though they legally are required to attend school.

    Ms. Murray seeks injunctive relief prohibiting defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of S.R.M. and E.D.M. to any private school or public school in the State of California.

    (16) Plaintiff Douglas Mackenzie, MD, is a plastic surgeon in Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County. Dr. Mackenzie graduated from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in 1989. For 11 years, Dr. Mackenzie served as a lieutenant colonel, flight surgeon in the Air National Guard. He was also Chief of Professional Services for the medical unit (Channel Islands 146th), and in that capacity had oversight of the Immunology Section.

    Dr. Mackenzie is the father of two boys, D.C.M. (20 years old) and G.J.M. (2 years old). D.C.M. had all recommended vaccines and has no obvious sequelae from them. Dr. Mackenzie did not know about risks of vaccines when D.C.M. was receiving vaccines and, like most parents, did not know which vaccines D.C.M. had received. Nor did Dr. Mackenzie know how much the CDC recommended schedule on which D.C.M. had been vaccinated differed from the schedule on which G.J.M. was expected to be vaccinated. G.J.M. is selectively vaccinated.

    Dr. Mackenzie has decided to stop giving G.J.M. vaccines. G.J.M.’s pediatrician appears supportive of Dr. Mackenzie’s choice. G.J.M. currently attends preschool with a PBE, but will be denied entry into kindergarten if SB 277 remains in effect.

    Dr. Mackenzie became interested in vaccines approximately four years after repeatedly observing media vilification of any doctor, politician or layperson who had questions about vaccines. Dr. Mackenzie began researching vaccines. He read books and scientific studies from the CDC, FDA, pharmaceutical companies and independent academic researchers.

    What became clear to Dr. Mackenzie in his research was how little he had been taught about vaccines in his medical school and post-graduate training. Dr. Mackenzie’s medical school and residency training taught him simply that vaccines are safe and effective and they are one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th Century. He recalls no discussion about risks from vaccination and how to recognize and treat adverse events. He did not learn about the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

    Dr. Mackenzie also recalls no mention whatsoever of any controversy regarding vaccinations. Dr. Mackenzie’s research into vaccines and vaccine science led him to become concerned about potential side effects of vaccination and he has decided to stop vaccinating G.J.M.

    As a medical professional, Dr. Mackenzie is capable of making sound healthcare decisions for G.J.M. without being deprived of the fundamental right for G.J.M. to receive a school-based education.

    Dr. Mackenzie seeks injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of G.J.M. to every private and public nursery, elementary and secondary school in the State of California for which he is otherwise eligible.

    (17) Plaintiff Victor Nuño, DO, is a physician residing with his wife, also a physician, and their fifteen-month old daughter, Z.E.N. in Vallejo, Solano County. Dr. Nuño has medical offices in the Cities of Vallejo and Redding and is an Assistant Professor at the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Touro University.

    In his medical school and post-graduate training, Dr. Nuño learned about the history and benefits of vaccines. Regarding risks, he recalls being taught that serious vaccine reactions were extremely rare and that most reactions to vaccines are mild and self-limited. He was not trained in medical school to recognize, treat or report adverse reactions to vaccines.

    In residency, Dr. Nuño worked with a physician who treated patients with adverse reactions to vaccination. This is when Dr. Nuño first began conducting independent research and reading textbooks and scientific studies on vaccines.

    Dr. Nuño is troubled by the lack of adequate safety studies on the safety of certain vaccine ingredients and their synergistic effect on children’s health. Dr. Nuño is also troubled by the lack of adequate safety research of the dramatically expanded vaccination schedule according to which children today receive vaccines.

    Finally, Dr. Nuño is concerned about the current climate among medical professionals that allows virtually no honest discussion about vaccines or acknowledgement of the indisputable fact that like all pharmaceutical products, vaccines can cause a range of adverse reactions.

    While Dr. Nuño and his wife will give Z.E.N. some vaccines on a delayed and selective schedule, they do not believe that Z.E.N. needs all of the doses of all vaccines required for entry into California schools under SB 277. As medical professionals, Dr. Nuño and his wife are capable of and should be able to make healthcare decisions for Z.E.N. without being deprived of the fundamental right for Z.E.N. to receive a school-based education. Z.E.N. does not carry and cannot transmit any of the illnesses for which vaccines are required under SB 277.

    Dr. Nuño seeks injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the defendant State actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of Z.E.N. to every private and public nursery, elementary and secondary school in the State of California for which she is otherwise eligible.

    (18) Plaintiff E4A Foundation is a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business in San Diego, California, whose purpose is to promote and protect equal access to public and private education.

    In this lawsuit, E4A Foundation asserts claims on behalf of its members who are impacted by SB 277. E4A Foundation’s members include, but are not limited to: (a) parents whose children will be excluded from kindergarten in fall 2016; (b) parents whose children will be excluded from the seventh grade in fall 2016; (c) parents whose children will be excluded from daycare or nursery school in fall 2016; (d) parents who have moved to California and cannot enroll their children into school; (e) parents with religious objections to vaccination, including objections to using vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells; (f) parents who have concerns about the safety of vaccines and their ingredients; (g) parents of children with disabilities; (h) parents of children with special needs who have IEPs in school districts that are refusing admission to children with IEPs; (i) parents whose children have medical exemptions from vaccination that are being rejected by schools; (j) parents who object to the hepatitis B vaccine; (k) parents of children who are being denied conditional entry into school to enable them to use a delayed catch-up vaccination schedule set by the child’s physician; (l) parents who filed PBEs prior to January 1, 2016 and whose children are being denied reenrollment into the next grade because the school has lost the previously-filed PBE; (m) parents who are not fluent English speakers and, therefore, cannot homeschool; (n) single parents who do not have the financial resources to homeschool; (o) low income parents who do not have the financial means to homeschool; (p) parents whose family members have had adverse vaccine reactions, including those who have been compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but who cannot obtain medical exemptions for their children; (q) parents whose children have blood test results indicating sufficient antibody levels for illnesses for which they are required to vaccinate under SB 277; (r) healthcare professionals, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, physician’s assistants and emergency medical technicians who are concerned, among other things, about the safety of vaccines and the current vaccination program, the loss of rights to equal education, parental decision-making and informed consent to medical procedures.

    (19) Plaintiff Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax exempt nutrition education foundation whose members follow healthy natural approaches to health and healing. Weston A. Price Foundation has 39 local chapters and 1,836 members in California, many of whom are families with young children who would avail themselves, or may have in the past obtained, a PBE. In this lawsuit, Weston A. Price Foundation asserts claims on behalf of its members who are impacted by SB 277.

    (20) Plaintiff Citizens for Health is a nonprofit, 501(c)(4) advocacy organization providing information about natural healing and laws affecting health to approximately 30,000 Californians. In this lawsuit, Citizens for Health asserts claims on behalf of its members who are impacted by SB 277.

    (21) Plaintiff Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) is a Georgia based nonprofit corporation founded in 1992. The ANH-USA mission is to protect access to natural health options and a toxin free lifestyle, including the ability to decline vaccination or modify the vaccine schedule for one’s children. The ANH – USA consists of over 500,000 members, including 78,000 California residents, many of whom will be harmed by SB 277 because they will not be able to make their own decisions for their school age children based on their beliefs about vaccine-related harms. In this lawsuit, ANH-USA asserts claims on behalf of its members who are impacted by SB 277.



    Defendants

    The State of California is the legal and political entity with the nondelegable responsibility for educating all of California’s school children by providing a free public education under the California Constitution, Article IX, Section 5 and by assuring that all California children receive their fundamental right to an equal education under the equal protection clauses of the California Constitution, Article I, Sections 7(a) and 16(a).

    Defendant Tom Torlakson, sued in his official capacity, is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of California, the Secretary and Executive Officer for the State Board of Education, and the Chief Executive Officer of the California Department of Education. He is obligated to take all necessary steps to ensure that school districts comply with the California Constitution and State laws. Pursuant to the California Education Code, he is the Director of Education in whom all executive and administrative functions of the California Department of Education are vested. He is responsible for ensuring that all children within the State of California receive a free and equal public education.

    Defendant California Board of Education is responsible for determining the policies governing California’s schools and for adopting rules and regulations for the supervision and administration of all 1,022 local school districts. Pursuant to California Education Code sections 22020-22032, Defendant State Board of Education is required to supervise local school districts to ensure that they comply with State and federal laws concerning educational services. 35. Defendant California Department of Education is the department of State government responsible for administering and enforcing laws related to education.

    Defendant Karen Smith, MD, MPH, sued in her official capacity, is the Director and State Public Health Officer for the California Department of Public Health. She is obligated to take all necessary steps to ensure that the California Department of Public Health and 61 local health departments comply with the State and federal laws in discharging their duties to protect public health and safety.

    The California Department of Public Health is a state agency created by California statute, charged with implementing the California Health and Safety Code and regulating the statutes at issue, including, inter alia, Health & Safety Code §§ 120325, 120335, 120338, 120370 and 120375.

    Defendants Takashi Wada, MD, and Charity Dean, MD, sued in their official capacities, are the Director and Health Officer, respectively, of the Santa Barbara County Department of Public Health, and are responsible for upholding, implementing and enforcing the laws at issue.

    All defendants either are recipients of State and federal funds in support of the operation of schools or health departments or are responsible for and capable of ensuring that State and federal funds are spent by recipients in a nondiscriminatory manner in the State public school system.

    Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that all of the Defendants are and were in some manner legally liable for the conduct at issue in this action. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each Defendant was at all times acting with the implied or express direction, approval and ratification of each of the other Defendants.

    Irreparable Injuries..

    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 200. Plaintiffs are now severely and irreparably injured by SB 277 – a state law that violates the Due Process and Equal Protections of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the California Constitution.

    By way of example only, Plaintiffs’ and their children’s injuries as a result of SB 277 include the deprivation of fundamental rights and the severe humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma caused to Plaintiffs and their children by Plaintiffs’ inability to send their children to school, and the stigma caused by the mischaracterization and marginalization of their children.

    Plaintiffs’ injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares SB 277 unconstitutional and enjoins Defendants from enforcing it.

    An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether SB 277 violates the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. Defendants are presently enforcing this state law to the detriment of Plaintiffs and their minor children.

    General Allegations…

    I am going to save the explanation of the “General Allegations” for the next article. Why? There is a lot of stuff readers will be thrilled to see.

    To Read the entire eighty-nine (89) page Complaint right now, click on: first amended complaint.
    http://bolenreport.com/wp-content/up...-complaint.pdf


    Stay tuned…

    By Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (16th July 2016), william r sanford72 (16th July 2016)

  32. Link to Post #37
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    SB 277 First Amended Complaint “General Allegations…”
    Quote
    Examining the Details…

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    I make no secret of the fact that I VERY MUCH like the writing and
    construction of this lawsuit, both as a legal tool, and as a clear concise,
    explanation of the issues that we, the people of Planet Earth, face in
    regards to mandatory vaccine programs.

    I know there is a lot of reading that needs to be done to comprehend the
    magnitude of the problem we face, but..

    It’s all right here. Just read it a piece at a time.

    The “General Allegations”…

    I am going to break this section of the First Amended Complaint in to
    sub-sections to make it easier to comprehend where the legal arguments are
    going. Yes, there is a lot here to read, but it all makes sense,
    especially if you break it up into those sections. So, let’s do that…

    To read the entire article, click on:

    http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-first-...ons/#more-4064

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (28th July 2016)

  34. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    Why Are Vaccine Rights Being Removed While Safety Issues Are Increasingly Brought to the Fore?
    July 19, 2016
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...rid=1579911636

    Quote By Dr. Mercola

    As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher,1 founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), July Fourth celebrates the American Declaration of Independence, which asserts that "all men are created equal," and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

    Unwilling to submit to the tyranny of the aristocracy any longer, the Declaration is a pledge, promising that the United States would uphold the "unalienable natural right to life and liberty that belongs to every person."

    Yet today, 240 years later, we again find ourselves in a situation where we're increasingly oppressed by an elite "who want the legal right to judge, shame, segregate, discriminate against and punish fellow citizens who do not share their beliefs," Fisher writes, adding:

    "Nowhere is this truth more self evident than in the oppressive implementation of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws that fail to respect biodiversity or human rights and crush citizen opposition, in violation of the informed consent ethic and freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief ...

    The appropriation of unaccountable authority by medical trade and the militarization of public health in the 21st century should be of concern to every person who values life and liberty."

    Vaccines Are 'Unavoidably Unsafe'

    Both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe,"2 and this is what precipitated the decision to grant drug companies immunity against vaccine injuries and deaths.

    If vaccine makers could actually be sued for damages, most would probably go out of business.

    This "free pass" means that if the vaccine fails to protect you or your child, or worse, ends up injuring or killing, you cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine.

    As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, vaccine makers have started churning out an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.

    Bill Threatens to Strip Virginia of Religious and Medical Exemptions

    At the same time, there's a concerted, nationwide effort to eliminate choice by removing religious and conscientious [sic] vaccine exemptions, which were instituted more than 50 years ago.

    "[In] 2015, Vermont lost the conscience exemption and California lost the personal belief exemption protecting both exercise of conscience and religious beliefs. This year, the vaccine machine invaded Virginia," Fisher writes.3

    "A proposed law was introduced in the House of Delegates in January 2016 to strip away not just the religious vaccine exemption, but also the medical exemption for all children, whether they are being homeschooled or are enrolled in public or private schools.

    An individual physician would no longer exercise professional judgment when granting a child a medical exemption but would become a government agent enforcing the narrow one-size-fits all federal vaccine contraindication guidelines ... which means that 99.99 percent of children would not qualify for the medical vaccine exemption in Virginia."

    Fortunately, parents in Virginia rose up and were able to suppress the bill. But it may be only a temporary victory. Similar legislation is expected to be reintroduced next year.

    Interestingly, not only does Virginia have one of the lowest vaccine exemption rates in the U.S., Virginia is also "hallowed ground where freedom of thought, conscience and religion [were] first defined as a natural right and [were] codified into American law," Fisher notes.

    Virginia's history as a leading defender of religious and personal rights is likely one of the reasons they're now trying to undermine personal and religious freedom in that state with the most restrictive anti-choice law of any state to date.

    Lawsuit Filed to Overturn California Vaccine Requirements

    Despite overwhelming opposition, California lost the personal belief exemption last year. The new law took effect on July 1.

    That same day, a group of parents and the nonprofit Education 4 All filed a lawsuit to overturn the new law, which requires all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public or private school and/or daycare.

    Parents who refuse to vaccinate their child according to the mandated schedule have only two options: they can try to get a medical exemption, which is extremely difficult and rarely obtained, or home-school their child.

    Any child who previously attended school under a personal belief exemption must be fully vaccinated by kindergarten and seventh grade to be allowed to stay in school.

    According to CBS News,4 the lawsuit says "the law violates the children's right to an education as guaranteed under California's constitution, and asks for a judge to suspend the law while the suit plays out."

    The plaintiff's attorney, Robert T. Moxley, said the law "has made second class citizens out of children who for very compelling reasons are not vaccinated," adding they hope to be granted an injunction "while the judicial process takes place to see if this law is constitutional, which it most certainly does not seem to be."

    Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous

    In a recent article for congressional blog The Hill, Gretchen DuBeau, executive director for Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), writes:5

    "When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients and the CDC schedule to be completely safe.

    The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done. Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.

    Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body's immune system into action.

    Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down's syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done."

    Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. They're not doing it out of some misplaced desire to rebel against authority.

    But rather than conducting the necessary research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to simply push for forced vaccinations instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.

    Assumptions and Comparing Apples to Oranges Are Not Good Science

    DuBeau goes on to talk about how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set the limit on the amount of aluminum allowed in vaccines, saying this limit is not based on safety studies but rather on the amount required to boost vaccine effectiveness. The agency is simply assuming the current levels are safe, based on inappropriate data.

    The safety level for orally ingested aluminum was set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on rat studies. However, while the EPA's minimum risk level is used to justify aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, you really cannot compare orally ingested aluminum and intra-muscularly injected aluminum. These two routes of administration do not produce the same health effects. As noted by DuBeau:

    "[I]ngesting aluminum orally, where only about 0.25 percent is absorbed and then filtered by the kidneys, is very different than injecting it directly into muscle, where it may be absorbed at nearly 100 percent efficiency over time and can accumulate in organs, including the brain.

    This complete lack of evidence proving the safety of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines is unacceptable and should concern any parent who trusts health authorities with the safety of their children."

    Many Scientists Have Raised Concerns About Potential Vaccine Dangers

    DuBeau takes a strong stand against California's mandatory vaccination law (SB 277), calling it "ill-advised," as it mandates dosing all school-aged children with a dangerous metal known to have neurological effects. She also points out that the scientific community is nowhere near as unanimous as proponents of SB 277 and other forced vaccination laws would like you to believe.

    "Many doctors and researchers have raised serious concerns about vaccine ingredients like aluminum," she writes. "Animal studies, for instance, have demonstrated a link between repeated inoculation with aluminum-containing vaccines and severe neurobehavioral outcomes ... and altered expression of certain genes in the brain.

    According to DuBeau, children who get all of the vaccines on the CDC's schedule may receive as much as 4,225 micrograms of aluminum in their first year of life. "To put this in perspective," she says, "the animals mentioned above were given an aluminum dose in a range that is nearly comparable to what children on the CDC schedule receive. This should give us all pause."

    Also consider this: the amount of aluminum injected into a newborn baby via the hepatitis B vaccine equates to an adult getting 10 doses of the vaccine in one day, when you consider the difference in weight between the two.

    In order for an adult to get the same amount of aluminum per kilo of weight that a child receives at the age of 2 months, the adult would have to get 34 adult doses of the hepatitis B vaccine in one day. Does it really seem reasonable or wise to inject that hefty a dose of aluminum into a baby?

    Doctor Highlights Risks and Excessive Cost of HPV Vaccine

    One medical doctor raising concerns about vaccine hazards is Gary G. Kohls, who is now retired. In a recent article,6 he responds to a commentary in the News Tribune, "written and endorsed by area board-certified pediatricians, oncologists and obstetricians/gynecologists," who promote "the universal use of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for pre-teen and teen-age girls."

    According to Kohls, "the commentary appeared to be a part of a worldwide, billion-dollar promotion campaign," to encourage women around the world to get vaccinated, and financing this campaign is "one of the most profitable, price-gouging pharmaceutical companies in the world, Merck."

    "In 2006, after only three to five years of clinical trials, the FDA approved for marketing the most expensive vaccine in the history of the world, Gardasil, which has been proclaimed as preventative for cancer of the cervix, a claim that was never proved and which has, to date, not prevented a single case of cervical cancer ... mainly because cancer of the cervix takes 20 to 50 years to develop," he writes.

    The only thing these short-term industry-funded studies showed was that the vaccine "produced transient anti-HPV immune complexes in most of the young female vaccine recipients." They also found "modest reductions in the development of abnormal Pap smears." However, it's well known that 90 percent of all HPV infections clear up on their own within two years anyway, so that's hardly a medical breakthrough.

    Kohls notes that the antigens in Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline's version of the HPV vaccine, Cervarix, are "genetically engineered proteins that, thanks to the neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant in each dose, can cause serious autoimmune disorders and unknown levels of potentially serious mitochondrial damage."

    'Number Needed to Treat' Statistic Reveals Risks and Cost of HPV Vaccine Far Outweigh Alleged Benefit

    The HPV vaccines are also exorbitantly priced, costing approximately $140 for three doses, plus office visit charges. According to Kohls, the News Tribune commentary bore all the hallmarks of an industry campaign, including all the standard talking points. Missing entirely was any mention of the potential downsides and risks of the HPV vaccines, and without this information, how can a parent or young woman make a fully informed decision?

    Kohls goes on to discuss the statistical measure known as "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT), which is a simple way to relate the effectiveness of any given treatment. A drug's NNT tells you how many people have to receive the drug in order for one person to benefit from it.

    "For instance, the NNT for a course of penicillin for penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis is one, meaning that one cure occurs for every one course of treatment. If a treatment results in only half of patients benefitting, the NNT is two (the inverse of the fraction 1/2). The smaller the NNT, the more beneficial the treatment," he explains.

    "An article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) ... stated that for Gardasil, the Number Needed to Vaccinate (same principle as the NNT) to prevent four or five cases of cervical cancer for a typical 12-year-old girl would be 9,080, meaning that 9,075 girls would be risking the serious adverse health consequences of Gardasil ... while still not receiving the alleged benefit, the prevention of cervical cancer." [Emphasis mine]

    Neither doctors nor patients are informed about NNT statistics, yet this can be a very important treatment consideration. In Kohl's view, the cost of the HPV vaccine, both in terms of dollars and cents and their potential adverse health effects "come nowhere near outweighing the alleged benefit."

    It's very unusual for a doctor to come out with such strong views. Most would do so under the threat of potentially losing their medical license. However, Kohl is retired, so he doesn't have to fret about that possibility, which may be why he's able to be so outspoken in the first place.

    Complaint Filed Over European HPV Vaccine Assessment

    Kohls is not the only one expressing concerns over the way the HPV vaccine is being pushed while risks are overlooked. On May 26, the Nordic Cochrane Center, which is part of Cochrane, an international network considered the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, filed a complaint with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), questioning the EMA's 2015 Assessment Report on the safety of HPV vaccines. In the 19-page letter to the EMA, Cochrane Nordic Center writes:7

    "We are concerned about the EMA's handling of this issue as reflected in its official report and ask the EMA to assess:

    1. Whether the EMA has been open and accountable to the citizens and has respected their rights to know about the uncertainties related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.

    2. Whether the EMA has lived up to the professional and scientific standards that must be expected of the agency to guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy when evaluating the science and the data related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.

    3. Whether the EMA has treated fairly — in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy — a Danish whistleblower, Dr. Louise Brinth, when she raised concerns about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.

    4. Whether the EMA has treated fairly ... the observations and concerns the Danish Health and Medicines Authorities and the Uppsala Monitoring Centre had raised about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.

    5. Whether the EMA's procedures for evaluating the safety of medical interventions guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy. The EMA asked the manufacturers of the vaccines to assess potential harms of their own products in which they have huge financial interests.

    6. Whether the extreme secrecy, with life-long confidentiality agreements, which the EMA imposed on its working group members and scientific experts, is needed; is legitimate; is in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.

    7. Whether the redactions the EMA imposed on documents it delivered to the citizens according to Freedom of Information requests were needed; were legitimate; are in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.

    8. Whether the EMA has behaved in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy in relation to declaring conflicts of interest. We noticed a Guido Rasi's name associated with patents for inventions and wonder whether this is the same person who is the EMA's director.

    If so, we believe Rasi has failed to declare his conflicts of interest. We also believe that the rapporteur for the EMA's report, Julie Williams, has failed to declare her conflicts of interest.

    9. Whether the EMA behaves in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy when the agency use experts with financial ties to the manufacturers, in particular considering that it is always possible to find experts without such conflicts.

    10. In the interest of transparency, we urge the EMA to ensure that the names of all the experts consulted are disclosed together with their conflict of interest declarations ... "

    Functional Disorders Linked to HPV Vaccine

    According to Cochrane Nordic Center, the EMA ignored significant data showing there may be severe adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine, "the prominent symptoms, which are suspected of being caused by the vaccine," bearing strong similarities to functional disorders such as:

    Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)
    Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)
    Chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS)
    According to the complaint, "the hypothetical mechanism is an autoimmune reaction triggered by either the active component of the vaccine or the adjuvant in the vaccine."

    Cochrane also claims the EMA's internal 256-page report, which served as the basis for the draft of its 40-page official report, contradicts the final report. "We find that the EMA's comments are unprofessional, misleading, inappropriate and pejorative, and that the EMA's approach involves cherry-picking, which is unscientific," Cochrane writes.

    Cochrane also notes that the Uppsala centre compared adverse events reported following HPV vaccination and vaccination with all other vaccines given to women. Based on their findings, it would appear the HPV vaccine carries a FAR higher risk of severe side effects than any other vaccine, yet the EMA claims no conclusions could be drawn from this data:

    POTS was reported 82 times for HPV vaccines versus once for other vaccines
    CRPS was reported 69 times for HPV vaccines versus 16 for other vaccines
    Autonomic nervous system imbalance was reported 77 times versus 16 for others
    Fibromyalgia was reported 62 times for HPV versus 39 for other vaccines
    FluMist Found to Be Worthless Against Influenza

    In related news, The Washington Post8 recently wrote about the "mystery" of why FluMist suddenly stopped working. Until recently, the spray form of the flu vaccine was preferred over the injectable flu vaccine for children between the ages of 2 and 8. FluMIst is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning it contains a live but weakened version of the flu virus.

    In June, a CDC advisory panel decided the nasal spray "was so ineffective that it should not be used by anyone during the 2016 to 2017 season," The Washington Post reports. Data from last winter's flu season revealed FluMist was only 3 percent effective among children aged 2 to 17. This is yet another instance where almost everyone who received the vaccine risked their health for what amounts to no potential benefit whatsoever.

    According to Dr. David Kimberlin, a professor of pediatrics at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), the reason for FluMist's failure is still not understood. Researchers at MedImmune, the makers of FluMist, are trying to determine the cause. As noted by The Washington Post:

    "In any given flu season, vaccine effectiveness varies. One factor is how well the vaccines match the virus that is actually prevalent. Other factors include the age and general health of the recipient.

    In the overall population, the CDC says studies show vaccines can reduce the risk of flu by about 50 to 60 percent when the vaccines are well matched. Now, researchers are trying to find a common factor behind FluMist's recent incidents of poor performance."

    One of the questions researchers will attempt to answer include whether the flu vaccine may lose effectiveness when given to a child who has been previously vaccinated against influenza several times.

    What does all of this tell you? In my view, it speaks loud and clear to the fact that vaccine makers really don't know as much about their product as they purport to know. Yet despite this lack of knowledge, they insist vaccines are beneficial and worth just about any risk to the individual in order to protect society at large.HINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

    National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

    It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

    Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

    Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

    Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know

    If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

    I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

    We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

    The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

    I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

    NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
    If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
    Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
    Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.
    Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

    If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.

    At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

    It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

    So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (19th July 2016)

  36. Link to Post #39
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    SB 277 Lawsuit – Preliminary Injunction Hearing Date – August 12th, 2016
    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-lawsui...016/#more-4139
    Quote What is a Preliminary Injunction Hearing?

    The whole purpose of the lawsuit against SB 277 is to stop it, and its spin-off activities, from being activated.

    A Motion for Preliminary Injunction is a request to the Court for an Injunction before we begin arguing the lawsuit. There will be an actual Court Hearing for this August 12th, 2016, 1:30PM in Courtroom 13A, Federal Court Building, San Diego, CA. (shown in the photo above).

    What is an Injunction?

    According to the Cornell School of Law it is:

    An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are temporary injunctions. They are issued early in a lawsuit to maintain the status quo by preventing a defendant from becoming insolvent or to stop the defendant from continuing his or her allegedly harmful actions. Choosing whether to grant temporary injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the court. Permanent injunctions are issued as a final judgment in a case. Failure to comply with an injunction may result in being held in contempt of court.

    Getting an injunction is NOT an easy process. A US Supreme Court Decision called “Winter vs Natural Resources Defense Council” set the four-factor preliminary injunction standards that are being used today in Federal Courts.

    What the court will want to be convinced of is that for the Plaintiffs:

    (1) there is a likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law;

    (2) the balance of harm favors the movant;

    (3) there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the case;

    (4) the public interest favors the granting of the injunction.

    Now, those of you that read the case, noting how it was organized, can see that each section addressed one of these four factors – and did it very well.

    There’s More…

    But, then on top of the language in the case there was the “Plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction” which has some interesting points of its own. Below is that language. It is short and to the point:



    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, James S. Turner, Betsy E. Lehrfeld, Robert T. Moxley, and Carl M. Lewis, and move this court pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining the above-named defendants, their agents, employees, subordinates and successors and all persons acting in concert with them, from the following actions:

    (A) Denying the enrollment of Plaintiffs’ children into public or private elementary school or secondary schools, child care centers, day nursery facilities, nursery schools, family day care homes, or development centers, for the reason that such children are not “fully immunized” as contemplated by Section 120335 of the California Health and Safety Code as amended by SB 277.

    (B) Denying the enrollment of Plaintiffs’ children into public or private elementary school or secondary schools, child care centers, day nursery facilities, nursery schools, family day care homes, or development centers, for the reason that such children have submitted a “medical exemption” to vaccination, which exemption is deemed unacceptable pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 120370(a), as amended by SB 277, or for any other reason.

    (C) Denying the enrollment of Plaintiffs’ children into public or private elementary school or secondary schools, child care centers, day nursery facilities, nursery schools, family day care homes, or development centers, when such children would have been eligible for enrollment under a personal belief or religious exemption from one or more vaccinations prior to July 1, 2016.

    (D) Enforcing or implementing the provisions of California Statutes in such a manner as to assume the discretion to deny medical exemptions to vaccination, made upon written application as required by Section 120370 (a) of the Health and Safety Code.

    (E) Causing, by virtue of any purported exercise of statutory authority, the public schools and other public accommodations to “audit” vaccination status, and/or to deny or threaten to deny services to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated claimants of religious exemption, personal exemption, or medical opposition to vaccination.

    (F) Maintaining that previous holders of personal belief or religious exemptions to vaccination are now not entitled to be enrolled in public or private elementary school or secondary schools, child care centers, day nursery facilities, nursery schools, family day care homes, or development centers.

    IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, Plaintiffs state the following:

    (1) The individual Plaintiffs and association Plaintiffs have filed a First Amended Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking to remedy an ongoing infringement upon their rights under the United States and California Constitutions, and under California law.

    (2) The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated parties will suffer irreparable injury, for which they have no adequate remedy at law, unless a preliminary injunction is entered, enjoining the defendants, their agents, subordinates, employees and all persons acting in active concert or in participation with them, from denying enrollment of the children of Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated parties in public or private elementary or secondary schools, child care centers, day nursery facilities, nursery schools, family day care homes, or development centers.

    (3) There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of their pending Complaint.

    (4) There are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them fair ground for litigation.

    (5) The balance of hardships tips decidedly toward the Plaintiffs.

    (6) A memorandum of points and authorities in support hereof is filed of even date.

    (7) No bond should be required of Plaintiffs because Defendants would incur no additional expense from the relief sought herein of restoring the status quo ante.

    (8) Counsel for Plaintiffs has conferred with counsel for Defendant California Department of Public Health and requested that Defendants voluntarily stipulate to a stay of the actions sought to be enjoined herein pending resolution of this matter on the merits and Defendant refused to enter into such stipulated stay. Set. Declaration of James S. Turner, Esq. attached as Exhibit A.

    Conversations With the Defendant’s Attorney…

    Attorneys for both sides talk to each other. Just below is a record of some of those conversations. I am including it so you can see behind the curtain, so-to-speak. It is this, from lead attorney Jim Turner:

    (6) I am lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this action.

    (7) On July 1, 2016 I and my co-counsels filed a complaint in this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, seeking an immediate stay of the implementation of SB 277.

    (8) On that same date I spoke with California Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Rich, who has since noticed his representation of defendant California Department of Public Health and Dr. Karen Smith, its director.

    (9) Attorney Rich and I discussed the possibility, and Attorney Rich emphasized that it was only a possibility, of a stipulation in which the state would consider agreeing to limit enforcement of some narrow aspects of SB 277, in order to resolve the issue of the temporary restraining order.

    (10) On July 5, Attorney Rich requested by email that plaintiffs enter into a stipulation that his client have until July 15 to file a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s motion and that the parties ask the court to set a hearing date of July 18.

    (11) On July 5, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.

    (12) On July 7, I sent a letter to Attorney Rich by email, setting forth the plaintiffs’ requests for a stipulation agreeing to a stay of implementation of SB 277 pending a determination of the case on the merits or in the alternative an expedited briefing schedule for a motion for preliminary injunction. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

    (13) On July 11, Attorney Rich denied plaintiffs’ requests for a stipulated stay and expedited briefing schedule.

    Memorandum of Points and authorities…

    You can read the whole document by clicking on the red button above an to the right labled “SB277 Court Docs.” But for simplicity I am including a few excerpts. See just below:

    PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

    In a few short weeks, all California students will be returning to classrooms, except some students with previously-valid Personal Belief Exemptions (“PBEs”) to California’s school vaccination requirements, and those who would have exercised PBEs. Effective July 1, 2016, Senate Bill (“SB”) 277 permanently bars these children from every public and private school in the State, in a dramatic and unprecedented departure from California’s long-standing history of unwavering protection of every child’s right to an equal education. Without injunctive relief, in SB 277’s first year of implementation alone, approximately 33,000 children, including many with disabilities, are barred from classrooms and deprived of an equal education or, for some children, any education at all. Every day throughout the State, schools are closing their doors to children who want and deserve to go to school, depriving them of fundamental rights and subjecting them to severe humiliation, prejudice, stigma and emotional distress.

    How about several thousand people on the Courthouse Steps August 12th?…

    Stay tuned…

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

    CLICK HERE - To Read ALL http://bolenreport.com/category/impo.../laesuitsb277/

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    william r sanford72 (20th July 2016)

  38. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,791 times in 9,344 posts

    Default Re: The poisoning of America: Glyphosate, Statins and Vaccines

    SB 277 Preliminary Injunction Reason – Health Department Leader Wants to Bite Doctors That Write Vaccine Medical Exemptions…

    Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
    http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-prelim...ons/#more-4154

    Another long article (worth reading) about what is going on in California re mandatory vaccines.
    August 12th is the date to watch, but lots going on behind the scenes in the meantime.

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    justntime2learn (16th September 2018), Paul (24th July 2016), william r sanford72 (20th July 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 12 17 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts