list of injuries. The most common vaccine injury at that time was a seizure disorder arising from DTP shots. At that time, it looked as though some thousands of people who had suffered neurological damage from DPT shots would be easily compensated, and that it would take the pressure off of the manufacturers in defending products liability cases. They could then focus their efforts on making a safer vaccine, and there's some profound ironies about that. There is an allegedly safer [pertussis 00:38:01] vaccine. It’s called [acellular 00:38:02] vaccine. When I testified against SB 277 to the Senate Education Committee, there were actually doctors there lamenting the notion that the acellular vaccine is not powerful, not as reactive, not as much of a stimulant to the immune system. They were even suggesting that maybe they should go back to that dirty, nasty vaccine in order to get better immunity against pertussis. They admitted at that time, that the source of pertussis outbreaks in California is probably bad vaccine and vaccine resistant strains of pertussis rather than failure to vaccinate. I have had the opportunity to defend numerous families who were being hassled by state health departments for the content and context of their religious objections. I filed a class action case in Wyoming several years ago when the state health officer was requiring anybody who wanted a religious objection to write an essay about what their religious objection really was. Then he would look at that for coherency, and if he denied somebody’s religious objection, then he would allow them a hearing in front of a state administrative judge. They were called religious sincerity hearings. Actually I wrote the injunction against that myself. I forced the state into a consent decree where they would leave everybody alone who swore under oath that vaccination was in conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs. That is a standard that I have defended across the country. I had 2 cases in Arkansas. Jim Turner was involved as an amicus party, where we set aside a state statute in federal court that only allowed religious objections to people who belong to a recognized religion. They had a lady in the state department of health that was in charge of recognizing religions, and the federal courts down there found that that was an establishment flaws problem. That is an entanglement between church and state where the state was improperly evaluating religious objections. That problem persisted all over the country and was present in California when California decided to eliminate personal belief exemptions, which are in essence, a conscientious objection, and in essence, a first amendment objection, because anybody who is opposed to vaccines … Unless they’re an out and out atheist, any religious person that’s opposed to vaccines has come to that decision partly in exercising their religion, and their decision making has to do with their relationship to god. Those people are entitled to religious exemption.
The other exemption is fear of adverse consequences, which is a personal medical
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online