On the Banks

Coalition Educates CA Lawmakers on Draconian Vaccine Bill

 

A coalition of organizations opposed to SB 276 will be hand delivering educational materials on the law to California lawmakers. I am reprinting the full report from one of the coalition members, in anticipation of it being taken down by Medium:

UPDATE: That didn't take long. The post at Medium appears to have been taken down.

--------

 

LOS ANGELES — California lawmakers received a “study assignment” from a coalition of organizations fighting against Senate Bill 276 including Conscience Coalition, Vaccine Injury Awareness League, Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids, Parents United 4 Kids, Dr. Bob Sears, Dr. Shannon Kroner and others. The group will be hand-delivering to lawmakers bound study packs with the assigned readings and information, along with doughnuts.

“The study assignment instructs lawmakers to educate themselves about the inevitability of vaccine injury and death,” said Jonathan Lockwood, executive director of the group. “We want to make sure lawmakers are fully aware of the unethical and lawless nature of this extreme mandate and the effective elimination of medical exemptions in California.”

SB 276 will kick students out of California schools simply because their doctors and parents decide to delay or spread out certain vaccinations, or need exemptions based on their medical and family history. The bill disrupts the doctor-patient relationship and jeopardizes the well-being of California children who are susceptible to vaccine injuries and deaths. People on both sides of this issue should agree that we should not rush such a life-impacting bill through the Legislature.

“This assignment also serves as a public notice to make it a matter of record, that lawmakers were given the opportunity to learn the facts,” added Lockwood. “No one can say ‘they didn’t know’ or lean on the ‘good intentions’ of the bill. Senate Bill 276 denies the reality that serious injuries and deaths are inevitably created by vaccines that cannot be made safe.”

Lockwood added:

“This is why Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to begin with, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s words were powerful. California lawmakers need to heed her warnings and recognize what she said. Big drug companies should not be liability-free and where there is a risk, there must be a choice.”

The letter writes to cast an informed vote on SB 276, every lawmaker should read four key legal documents:

1. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA): the federal law that gave vaccine makers immunity from liability for damages arising from vaccine-related injuries and deaths that result from “unavoidable” side effects; and created a compensation program for the vaccine injuries and deaths. California Rep. Henry Waxman sponsored this Act because drug companies threatened to stop making vaccines if they had to continue to face the massive increase in lawsuits from the parents of tens of thousands of victims they were creating.

2. The legislative report that accompanied the NCVIA: the report that explains congressional intent.

3. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: the decision that held that the NCVIA preempts/prevents all design-defect claims against vaccine makers brought by the victims of vaccine injuries and deaths; suggests that a vaccine’s design is not open to question; and establishes the “unavoidability” of vaccine injuries and deaths as a “complete defense.”

4. The 2011 Dissent by Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: the opinion that the legislative report confirms that “unavoidable” side effects are created by vaccines that “in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe.”

They vigorously defended the rights of vaccine victims and believed that Waxman’s Act intended to make it easier for them to seek and secure justice. Sotomayor said that “Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines.”

5. The ICAN lawsuits against the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services. These lawsuits show that the federal government has not upheld the law or the intention of the 1986 NCVIA.

Further, they should then read about the Hippocratic Oath, one of the oldest binding documents in history; and informed consent, which the AMA describes as “fundamental in both ethics and law.”

The letter explains that after reading and understanding all the above, every lawmaker should be asked:

* Will you act in accordance with the law of the land, the acknowledgments contained in the Supreme Court ruling and the Sotomayor/RBG dissent, the Hippocratic Oath and informed consent? Or will you blatantly disregard them by voting with your leadership and the corrupting influence of the special interests they are serving?

* Will you protect the doctor-patient relationship and the ability of doctors to grant exemptions to children they know should not get certain vaccines? Or force doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath?

* Will you protect informed consent? Or force parents to inject their children even after reading and understanding the federally mandated warnings of the unavoidable risks of vaccine injuries and deaths?

* Will you vote to kill SB 276? Or to injure and kill even more children? There is no public health emergency here. Lawmakers should put good policy and governance above politics, leave SB 276 in suspense and take the time to properly study and fully understand all the above.

About Conscience Coalition

Conscience Coalition is a nonpartisan nonprofit pulling together like-minded groups from across America to increase the 3 Cs-Communication, Cooperation and Coordination — to unite and win. The organization is focused on bringing together conscience rights and medical freedom groups in California through grassroots organizing, activism and education.

LETTER

TO: Members of the California Senate and Assembly | 10th and L Streets
Sacramento, CA 95814

FROM: Conscience Coalition, Vaccine Injury Awareness League, Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids, Parents United 4 Kids, & more.

RE: Senate Bill 276

To the Members of the California Senate and Assembly,

We the undersigned are providing all lawmakers in the California Legislature much-needed information that should be read ahead of casting any further votes on Senate Bill 276.

To cast an informed vote on SB 276, every lawmaker should read the following:

1. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA): the federal law that gave vaccine makers immunity from liability for damages arising from vaccine-related injuries and deaths that result from “unavoidable” side effects; and created a compensation program for the vaccine injuries and deaths. California Rep. Henry Waxman sponsored this Act because drug companies threatened to stop making vaccines if they had to continue to face the massive increase in lawsuits from the parents of tens of thousands of victims they were creating.

2. The legislative report that accompanied the NCVIA: the report that explains congressional intent.

3. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: the decision that held that the NCVIA preempts/prevents all design-defect claims against vaccine makers brought by the victims of vaccine injuries and deaths; suggests that a vaccine’s design is not open to question; and establishes the “unavoidability” of vaccine injuries and deaths as a “complete defense.”

4. The 2011 Dissent by Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: the opinion that the legislative report confirms that “unavoidable” side effects are created by vaccines that “in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe.”

They vigorously defended the rights of vaccine victims and believed that Waxman’s Act intended to make it easier for them to seek and secure justice. Sotomayor said “Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines.”

5. The ICAN lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration, and the ICAN lawsuit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Further, they should then read about the Hippocratic Oath, one of the oldest binding documents in history; and informed consent, which the AMA describes as “fundamental in both ethics and law.”

Reading and understanding all the above, every lawmaker should be asked:

* Will you act in accordance with the law of the land, the acknowledgments contained in the Supreme Court ruling and the Sotomayor/RBG dissent, the Hippocratic Oath and informed consent? Or will you blatantly disregard them by voting with your leadership and the corrupting influence of the special interests they are serving?

* Will you protect the doctor-patient relationship and the ability of doctors to grant exemptions to children they know should not get certain vaccines? Or force doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath?

* Will you protect informed consent? Or force parents to inject their children even after reading and understanding the federally mandated warnings of the unavoidable risks of vaccine injuries and deaths?

* Will you vote to kill SB 276? Or to injure and kill even more children?

There is no public health emergency here. Lawmakers should put good policy and governance above politics, leave SB 276 in suspense and take the time to properly study and fully understand all the above,

Dr. David Adams

Lori Brockman

Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids

Nicholle Collins

Stefanie Fetzer

Parents United 4 Kids

Michelle Ford

President, Vaccine Injury Awareness League

Dr Shannon Kroner

California for Medical Freedom

Jonathan Lockwood

Executive Director, Conscience Coalition

Sarah Rule

Dr. Bob Sears

Courtney Lackey

Andrea Ramstead

Founders, SCV 4 Parental Rights

Laira De La Vega

Public Relations Director, National Health Federation

Raphael Medicine & Therapies PC

 

 

 

Beach-Ball-Pushing Legislator Reveals Ignorance About Autism

 

 

 

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez came under fire recently for her insensitive treatment of parents opposed to SB 276, the latest attempt to tighten restrictions on medical exemptions for vaccines required for school attendance. ("I'm not letting people go into testimony about their children's medical conditions or perceived medical conditions..." )

Two days ago, she further embarrassed herself with this tweet:

 

 

...to which one person replied:

 

Again: Gonzalez is one of the politicians seeking to give the state the power to make medical decisions for other people's children. 

 

 

 

To the British Government: Stop Screwing Over Sick Kids

 

 

At a time when the rest of the world is coming to realize just how destructive, deadly, and counterproductive the War on (Some) Drugs has been, the British government is still seizing medicinal cannabis from children who need it. Well done, British government, well done. Maybe you can go back to torturing people in mental institutions too?

Emma Appleby's daughter Teagan has been using CBD to treat her seizures, with great success. Teagan has the same genetic condition that our daughter (seen above) has, Dup15Q Syndrome, and like our daughter, suffers from difficult-to-control seizures. I posted about their story earlier this year, when the CBD oil that they had purchased in Holland (because they were unable to get it in the UK) was seized from them at customs - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A PRESCRIPTION FOR IT!

Some background: In November of last year, "cannabis-derived medicine" became legal by prescription in England, Scotland and Wales. But that doesn't mean that the NHS will offer prescriptions for every kind of medicinal CBD product. As The Guardian reports:

Although several cannabis-based medicines have been prescribed by the NHS since it was legalised in November, full extract cannabis oils – which campaigners say are both more effective and cheaper – remain unlicensed and do not appear to have been given to patients.

However, they are available privately and a number of patients have gained access in that way.

The Applebys were finally able to get a private prescription for the oil that was helping Teagan, after having it seized at customs the first time they tried bringing it in from Holland. However she was then told that she would need an import license, which she could not afford.

Teagan's mom has since found someone who can import the oil legally, but just this week she was told by the doctor giving her the prescription that he will no longer be able to do so.

Miss Appleby says this likely means the request for NHS funding has been turned down.

"I haven't had confirmation yet, but I think it's for that reason the doctor is not prescribing any more," she said.

"This is a massive blow because they sounded quite confident the individual funding request (IFR) would go through and that she could have a prescription on the NHS."

It means the family must continue to find £2,500 every month to pay for the medication from abroad privately.

Emma currently has enough CBD oil to last for about another five weeks, and has found another doctor who can offer her a private prescription. But the price tag is exhorbitant (it is about TEN TIMES what we pay for our daughter's CBD oil in the US!). After her current batch runs out, she doesn't know if she will be able to afford more. Before starting CBD, Teagan was having as many as 300 seizures a day. Her improvement since starting CBD has been dramatic. Now though, she does not know what she will do:

"If she loses this medication it will kill her," she said.

"She was so poorly last year, I didn’t think she was going to come out of intensive care.

"It's improved her life so much - I can't go back to how she was."

As an aside: Emma Appleby could very likely have gotten the CBD in through customs, as some other parents do, had she kept quiet about it and not set out to make her story public. But she did make it public, and she did it for a reason: In order to help other families who are having a hard time accessing the medication that can help their children.

If you want to help Emma, and Teagan, in their battle to secure what should be easily available for all families, you can do so here. 

 

 

Why Protestors in Hong Kong Are Waving the Union Jack

 

 

This is a photo from a kinder, gentler, age of protests in Hong Kong: The handover to Chinese rule in 1997. There was no teargas back then, no gangs of Beijing-backed thugs beating crowds of people in shopping centers. In the nine years since the violent crackdown on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, those who had the ability to secure a foreign passport had already done so, and there was no great sense of impending doom. In fact, while it would be a stretch to say that anyone in Hong Kong trusted the government of Beijing, the prevailing view was that while those in that government may have been evil, they were not stupid. They were not going to do anything to "kill the golden goose" that they were taking back.

...and now, here we are.

I'm not going to make any predictions about what will happen between Hong Kong and its Mainland rulers now. But I will say this: One need not endorse imperialism (and I don't) in order to recognize that it was the fact of British colonialism that made Hong Kong what it is today - one of the greatest economic and humanitarian success stories in the history of the world. Millions of Hong Kong Chinese people are alive today only because their parents or grandparents were fortunate enough to flee the politically induced devastation that was happening just across the border. So I completely understand why, after the Tiananmen crackdown, the single-most repeated demand shouted by demonstrators in Hong Kong was for right of abode in Britain. And I completely understand why, today, some of them are waving the Union Jack.

And I'm happy to see an article like this one, which gets a lot right:

For those who embrace the ideological frameworks of various forms of “Social Justice” Theory including postcolonialism, decolonialism, critical race theory and intersectional feminism, seeing the Asian inhabitants of a former colony raise its colonial flag simply does not compute. Within this ideological conception of the world there is a very simple understanding of power dynamics in which oppression must always come from people seen as having dominant identities ... and be inflicted upon those seen as having marginalized identities ...  When all of these elements are considered together, we get the framework of ‘intersectionality’ and it is through the language and activism of intersectional scholars and activists that most people encounter these ideas.

Eastern people who complicate the narrative of Western oppressor and Eastern Oppressed are understood to be speaking into and perpetuating oppressive discourses of colonial power which apply much more broadly than their own situation. From this perspective, by aligning themselves symbolically with the flag or philosophically with the ideas wrought by colonial legacy, the protesters were understood to completely invalidate the legitimacy of their liberation movement... The journalist Ben Norton went so far as to say that the British flag was a symbol of “genocide, murder, racism, oppression and robbery,” and that the “pro-democracy” activists in Hong Kong were in effect, pro-colonialist groups, funded and backed by the “Western NGO-Industrial Complex.”

This argument perfectly exemplifies how one’s basic reasoning and moral calculus can get muddled when steeped too heavily in this kind of postcolonial theory.

 

I'll just quibble with one thing, for now: No, the people of Hong Kong aren't fighting for the freedoms that "we in the West take for granted." When I left Hong Kong in 2000 (and in the years preceding that), it was FAR MORE free than the US. By pretty much every measure I can think of. (I wrote about that here.) We would do well to learn from their experience as a British colony - not the other way around. I truly hope that what we're witnessing now is not the end of one of the most amazing cities - and stories - in our history.

 

 

Laughing at Auschwitz: the Banality of Evil in Pictures

 

 

 

Hannah Arendt, in her coverage of the war-crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann, alerted us to the "banality of evil." Eichmann was not, she observed, a maniacal monster filled with hate, a psychopath, or indeed, anyone very different from most of us. He was an ordinary man, just doing his job, following the orders given by his superiors. For pointing this out, Arendt was viciously attacked, and of course that makes sense: Nobody wants to hear that those who participated in mass murder and sub-human treatment of their fellow human beings were ordinary people, just like themselves.

But of course they were.

Here is another look at that banality. And a reminder that perhaps the most deadly human traits are those of obedience and going along with the crowd:

Twelve SS auxiliaries sit happily on a fence railing eating blueberries given to them by an SS officer. The photo was taken in 1944 in Solahütte, a recreation home located near Auschwitz for the SS team in charge of running the concentration camp. Another shows the auxiliaries callously feigning tears once their bowls are empty.

These are just two of 116 images in a photo album made public by the United States National Holocaust Museum in Washington earlier this week. The museum obtained the photos at the year of the year from a retired US Army intelligence officer, who came across the album in an apartment in Frankfurt and has now given them to the museum.

The photos were taken between May and December 1944, and they show the officers and guards relaxing and enjoying themselves -- as countless people were being murdered and cremated at the nearby death camp.

 

 

The Best Two Minutes and Ten Seconds of Television You Will Ever See

SPOILERS.

It's possible that it is too early to call this, but I don't think so. For those who have been watching Stranger Things (maybe not so much for those who haven't), this clip is destined to go down in history as the finest two minutes and ten seconds of all of television:

 

 

A Doctor's View on the Vaccine Debate

 

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a GP in Scotland, writes:

When it comes to the science, it does amuse me that vaccination began before anyone understood any of the science – of anything to do with microbes and the immune system. It all began, so it is recorded, with the observation that milkmaids were much less likely to get smallpox.

This led to the idea that you should deliberately infect people with a bit of cowpox, to prevent them getting smallpox. Bold.

‘The terms vaccine and vaccination are derived from Variolae vaccinae (smallpox of the cow), the term devised by Jenner to denote cowpox. He used it in 1796 in the long title of his Inquiry into the Variolae vaccinae known as the Cow Pox, in which he described the protective effect of cowpox against smallpox.’ [from the website that cannot be named… Wikipedia actually]

This was suggested at a time when all doctors thought infections were spread by Miasma. Basically, a nasty smell. No-one had the faintest idea that there were bacteria, or viruses. Somewhat ironically, vaccination – giving a small amount of a substance to cure/prevent a nasty disease – became the underlying principle of homeopathy – which most doctors now angrily dismiss as ‘woo woo medicine.’

Clearly, vaccination did not start as science. It basically started as a hunch, based on no comprehension of the science at all. Of course, that doesn’t make it wrong, but you can hardly suggest it was founded on a thorough understanding of the human immune system. Edward Jenner did not know that such a thing existed, and nor did anyone else. It was just a good guess.

The science of vaccination then became, what I call, backwards rationalisation. ‘It works, now let us work out how the hell it actually works.’ Again, nothing wrong with this. The best science often starts with observation, not a hypothesis. Graphene is a recent example. Two scientists larking about in the lab with Sellotape and pencils.

 

The whole thing is worth a read.

 

 

Daily Log: Saving Humanity by Learning How to Live with Tech.

 

 

I had some really amazing conversations at FEECON last month. Lots and lots of really smart, interesting, independent-minded people there, and lots to talk about. One of my favorite conversations was with another homeschooling mom (there were lots of those there too), whose name I didn't even get. Of course, the topic of "screens" came up. For me - and for a lot of parents, homeschoolers or not - this is my biggest challenge with our neuro-typical son. 

 

But this mom articulated it in a way that made me see the entire question differently. She said something to the effect of: "We're trying to figure out a balance between technology and 'real life', and to help our kids achieve this balance. And if we can get it right, it's one of the most important things we can do for the future of humanity."

 

I think she's right. Too much of the time, my own battle with technology, as a parent, consists of trying to find ways to limit it, to restict my son's "screentime." But there's so much more to it than that. This mom and I both agreed that we don't want to keep screens out of our kids' lives, we want them to be proficient in navigating the landscape that technology offers - a landscape that neither she nor I grew up with, and with which our kids are already far more proficient in many ways than we are.

 

But we also recognize that there are things we need as human beings - things like time spent in nature, face-to-face interactions with other humans, quiet time, to work with our hands, etc. - and that there are skills everyone needs to develop if they are going to be anything more than consumers and game players. Skills like: The ability to focus, to fend off distraction; the ability to think critically and evaluate the information one encounters; the ability to discern between substance and noise; and the nurturing of one's own moral compass.

 

Part of the problem with "screens" is down to the nature of the beast itself: From the physiological problems of exposure to blue light, to the way that communicating with others without seeing their faces changes both our communication and our ability to relate to others. But another part of the problem is just an augmentation of what we have always faced as humans: How to master our own minds. How to not just get sucked in to whatever attention-seeking piece of information happens to be floating around in front of us, but to focus on the things that we believe are important; How to not just adopt the viewpoints of the crowd around us, but really sit with something, think it through, and come to our own viewopoint; How to slice through all of the bullshit the world presents to us and distinguish between what is essential and worth spending time on, and what is not.

 

These are not new problems. The rate at which new information is being thrown at us may be new, but the underlying problem itself is not.

 

There's a lot more to say about this, but for now I just want to say that I now see this as THE big challenge for me as a homeschooling mom, and I'm going to be blogging more about it in the future. Partly just to help clarify my own thinking on the matter, because the God's honest truth here is that I have NO IDEA how to get this right. For myself, there have been a few times in my life when I really did have it right: In film school, when I was 100% focused on the work I was doing, all day long, and it was a beautiful thing; and again in the year and a half before I met my husband, when I was living on my own in Brooklyn, getting up and meditating every morning, going to ballet 3-4 times a week, teaching yoga and going to yoga classes, and also writing. It was so easy when I was on my own. But now, with a husband and two kids (I'm not complaining), one of whom needs lots of special care, and a day that is way too short for the list of things that Must Get Done... it is much more challenging. 

 

So that's my big challenge: Restoring peace and ...I'm not even sure what to call it... "right living"? "Balance" just sounds like jargon. I'll try to think of something better. Restoring the "real life" part of my life, and helping my son to have it too. And I suspect that the answer to getting it lies less in imposing restrictions on screens, and more in offering up meaningful (if not as immediately enticing) alternatives.

 

One of my favorite yoga teachers ever had this to say on the matter: "Learn to use technology, without letting it use you." That's the power I want to give to my son. 

 

Stay tuned as I work to figure this out.

 

 

 

 

Daily Log: Way Behind, but ...Sky Pirates!

 

 

OK, yes, I have not been doing a great job of updating my Daily Log each day. In other news though, my book is finished! Yesterday, I received the proofing copy of Annabel Pickering and the Sky Pirates!!! There are a few little tweaks to make (and the cover here is too dark), so maybe I shouldn't say "finished" - but yes, tweaks aside, it is done! I will spend the next few months publicizing it, gathering reviews, and... I don't really know what else, to get people to know that it's out there... and in early October it will be released!

For now, you can read the first few chapters here.

 

Daily Log: All I Have to Say About Google

 

 

Yesterday, RT reported that:

"An embarrassing new leak shows Google employees discussing disabling features for YouTube creators they describe as ‘Nazis,’ even as the company denied allegations of political bias based on earlier leaked documents.

"In an email published on Tuesday by the conservative watchdog Project Veritas, one member of the Google transparency and ethics team, identified only as Liam, tells others that Prager University, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are “Nazis using the dog whistles you mention.”

"Those named in the email reacted swiftly and with umbrage at being described as Nazis. Prager University pointed out that their founder is Jewish and has spoken against “anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc.”..."

 

And today, GreenMedInfo reports that: 

"Earlier this month, in one devastating algorithmic stroke, Google removed many of the top natural health and health freedom websites from their organic search results -- some losing as much as 90% of their traffic."

 

I only have this to say about Google:

I am eternally grateful to the company for the generous paternity leave and time off that it gave my husband when our daughter was born and had medical difficulties, and for allowing him to work remotely when we decided to move down south in order to be closer to my family. As an employer, they are the very best, and are very good people.

But Google is destroying itself. I would say that it is helping to destroy civil discourse, and a culture of free and open communication, but I don't believe that that will be destroyed. What is happening is that, as the major players attempt to censor content on their platforms, new platforms are coming into being and the people who don't want their speech to be controlled are going there.

Civil discourse will likely become more fragmented, with even more distance between ideological bubbles, but it is not going to disappear. What will happen though, is - barring govt. intervention that hands these folks a genuine monopoly (PLEASE stop calling for anti-trust action against them!) - the Googles and the FaceBooks and the HuffPos will become known as places where information and communication are manipulated to fit someone's agenda. The people who are OK with that will continue to go to those sites, and those who don't want their conversations and Internet searches to be controlled will go elsewhere.

Other than the occasional image search, I haven't used Google's search engine for a few years now.

 

Daily Log: Scarecrows

 

 

Today was depressing - if I focus on the news, that is. SB 276, the draconian bill that I wrote about here and here, passed out of the CA Assembly Health Committee today by a vote of 9:3, with 2 abstaining. It was entirely expected, it's not that I'm let down somehow, that I believed the politicians would suddenly wake up and give a shit about individual rights. But it is depressing to watch the same charade played out over and over again:

Hundreds upon hundreds of parents descending upon the hearings, most of them with stories of vaccine-injured children; stony-faced politicians looking back at them and admonishing them against making "personal attacks" against the people who are threatening their children; one or more politicians (this time it was the governor) feigning opposition on principle, only to be swayed in the end; dishonest testimony from those pushing the bill; sometimes some good counter-testimony from those against it - which always goes ignored; and finally, a vote strongly in favor of more government power over all of our lives.

And what keeps running through my head this time is: Measles. They were able to push this through, and whip up public hysteria, over something as insignificant as measles. If they can railroad our most fundamental rights, and ignite public furor, over that, then they can do it over ANYTHING. Jews, immigrants, people who don't dress the way you do... or a country far away that has never posed any kind of threat to the people living here.

I've written elsewhere about how it doesn't make sense to expect the political system to protect our rights and our freedom. It seems especially relevant to repeat today:

Here’s the thing to understand: The things libertarians want - freedom, less govt. interference in markets & in personal choices, non-interventionist foreign policy… there is no money in these things for politicians. There are no big corporations and very few rich people who are willing to pay tons of money to politicians to refrain from intervening in markets, or to keep the troops home, or to let people ingest whatever substances they want to.

In fact, it is just the opposite: Corporations have long been in the business of paying politicians to intervene in markets on their behalf, to erect barriers to competition and in some cases to squash a particular competitor. Competition is wonderful for society as a whole. But it’s not so great if you’re one of the ones doing the competing. It’s hard, and sometimes you lose. Sometimes, if you’re big enough, it’s just easier to send some money in the direction of the people who can discover antitrust violations in your competitor’s business practices.

Understand that behind the empty campaign promises, politicians have essentially two things to offer to the people who support them: 1. Power, in the form of regulatory and other control, over competitors and others who may get in the way of a particular entity remaining comfortably profitable; 2. Money. Not their own money of course - your money, and my money. Taken from us in taxes, and in the continual devaluation of the government-issued money we all use. Politicians can give money to their supporters in the form of contracts for things like military equipment and public works projects, or in less direct ways, like mandating that government schools all stock epinephrine injectors that meet the same very specific product requirements that your device happens to meet.

And the list goes on. What is not on this list is liberty. Why? Because nowhere in this game is there an advantage to selling liberty. This point was driven home to me a few years ago when I asked a California senator’s policy consultant if his boss would consider relaxing business restrictions as a way to help parents of children with special needs create the services they need. He practically laughed at me. There was nothing in it for his boss or his boss’ supporters in reducing the very control that he uses to buy support.

In theory, politicians could offer liberty to their supporters. They could offer to cut back regulations, to end military aggression. But who is going to pay them for that? Again these are things that would benefit everyone, all of society. But the game of politics is not about benefitting all of society. And the widely accepted belief that it is is perhaps the most dangerous lie ever crafted.

In order for a seeker of liberty to win at this game, that person would have to compete with the campaign donations and other inducements made by military contractors, major pharmaceutical companies, oil companies - but these are all entities that have been made rich by virtue of government interventions and direct largesse. How can a liberty seeker hope to offer the same level of financial inducements to politicians as these people, when they are not also on the receiving end of the government slush?

This is the real reason that libertarians “don’t matter” in the political sphere. It’s not because they don’t vote. It’s because they don’t participate in the real game of politics - the interest-driven game that can never reward a player who wishes to dismantle the very engine of that game. People win at the game of politics by buying and selling political power over other people’s lives and resources. A player who wants to reduce that power will not find themselves rewarded within that game - they will find themselves spat out of it.

That’s why the political beasts are laughing at us. It’s not because we don’t vote - it’s because we don’t steal. And for these people - for people who never even question the morality of using state violence to get what they want - that is the biggest joke in the world.

 

I have to keep reminding myself that it's OK that only a small minority of people will ever get this. I have to keep reminding myself that real change for the better doesn't generally happen by virtue of mass movements, and that those of us who recognize the unrestrained power of the state as the most urgent problem facing humanity need to look elsewhere for solutions. But it would just be nice if every once in a while it wasn't so easy for them. It would be nice if every once in a while, trampling our most fundamental rights wasn't such a walk in the park.

 

 

 

Amendments to SB 276 Are More Draconian than the Original Bill (A Partial Analysis)

 

Image: Public domain.

 

As I wrote last week, California legislators (and one in particular) are trying to tighten restrictions on the granting of exemptions from the vaccines required for school. The bill, SB 276, seeks to replace doctors with state agents in determining whether an exemption is legitimate or not.

Earlier this month, California’s governor Gavin Newsom expressed concerns about the bill, saying: “I’m a parent. I don’t want someone that the governor of California appointed to make a decision for my family.”

Yesterday though, Governor Newsom did an about turn, declaring that the bill had been sufficiently modified to address his concerns and that he would sign it.

According to the Sacramento Bee:

State Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, had been working with the governor’s office for two weeks before he announced that he accepted changes that both Newsom and the Medical Board of California wanted to see.

But have the changes addressed Newsom’s expressed concerns that doctors would be replaced by state agents in granting medical exemptions?

Here is the bill, with the amendments tracked in blue and deletions tracked in red, so you can clearly see what was in the original and what is in the amended version. Here are the most relevant changes, as I see them. NOTE: This is a quick and dirty review, and is not complete, as I have a couple of outstanding questions which I will leave for an update. But I wanted to get this out ASAP:

1. A lot more information is to be required on the exemption form that parents submit. Including: The name, CA medical license number, business address and telephone number of the child’s primary care physician, if different from the physician issuing the exemption; the name and address of the child’s school; a statement certifying that the physician has conducted an examination consistent with the relevant standard of care. [Emphasis mine.]

2. Doctors would be required to certify under penalty of perjury that the information they are submitting is true. This threat of a perjury charge is new–it was not in the original, and it is significant.

3. Any doctors who write more than five exemptions each year will be subject to review by the public health department.

4. If the State Department of Public Health “…determines that a physician and surgeon poses a risk to the public’s health," the doctor can be prohibited from submitting any medical exemption applications for at least two years.

5. Doctors would not be allowed to charge money either for filling out an exemption form, or for “(a)n examination related to the renewal of a temporary medical exemption.”

6. Any schools with a vaccination rate of less than 95% will be subject to review by a “clinically trained department staff member.” 

7. The State Department of Public Health “shall create a standardized system to monitor immunization levels in schools and institutions as specified in Section 120440, and to monitor patterns of unusually high exemption form submissions by a particular physician and surgeon or medical practice.”

8. In what appears to be a concession to concerns about the criteria for exemptions being too limited, the amended bill states:

“the department, based on the medical discretion of the clinically trained immunization staff member, may accept a medical exemption that is based on other contraindications or precautions, including consideration of family medical history, if the issuing physician and surgeon provides written documentation to support the medical exemption that is consistent with the relevant standard of care.” [Emphasis mine.]

This sounds like a genuine broadening of the exemption criteria, and indeed it might be. But there are a couple of problems:

a. Who determines what “consistent with the relevant standard of care” means? Obviously, someone in the State Department of Public Health.

b. While this might look like a concession on paper, the reality of the other requirements that have been added to the bill mean that doctors would be less free to write exemptions than they would have been even under the original SB 276 text:

They will be limited to writing five exemptions each year, if they do not want their practice to be “reviewed” by state authorities; they will be unable to charge their normal fees for filling out exemption forms or for examinations for patients seeking renewals; and they risk being charged with perjury–a felony for which violators can be sentenced to up to four years in prison– if their medical assessments do not line up with those of the California Department of Public Health.

The Sacramento Bee reports that “(p)arents are given additional power under the amendments, because they can appeal decisions made by public health officials who might revoke or deny medical exemptions.”

But this is complete nonsense. Appeals were already allowed in the original version of the bill, which stated:

“The denial of a request for a medical exemption may be appealed to the State Public Health Officer.”

The only difference between the two versions in this regard seems to be that appeals would have been filed by doctors in the original bill, but are filed by “a parent or guardian” in the amended version.

In fact, the amended version of this bill is more draconian than the first version, for the reasons I give above. Moreover, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the role of the state in making medical decisions. The authority to grant - or to deny - medical exemptions for vaccines would still rest with the state, and not with doctors. Indeed, the amendments make it far more difficult for doctors to even initiate the process of applying for an exemption. 

The amended version of SB 276 takes what was already a gross violation of the doctor-patient relationship, and of the ability of doctors to practice according to their own judgement and conscience, and makes it much, much worse. Where the original version simply sought to exert power over a doctor’s decisions, this one actually criminalizes them. With the threat of up to four years in prison for making medical statements that the state does not agree with, very few medical professionals are going to be willing to write exemptions at all should this bill pass.

How Governor Newsom can in any way see this as addressing his concerns about the state having too much power over medical decision making defies even the wildest of imaginations.

 

 

 

 

CA Legislators Aim to Replace Doctors with the State in Granting Vaccine Exemptions - My Article for FEE

 

Image: Public domain.

 

From my article on Fee.org last week:

At the time, Pan assured parents that exemptions based on medical criteria would remain in place and would not be interfered with:

"If a physician feels that there is a genetic association in a sibling, a cousin, some other relative, it’s not safe for a vaccine, then they can provide a medical exemption for that vaccine—there is no limitation,” said Pan, during SB 277 hearings.

Now, four years after the passage of SB 277, and with a degree of mendacity that is frankly awe-inspiring, the Sacramento Bee reports that Pan

… is prepared ... to close what he considers a loophole that SB 277 inadvertently created. "I have dedicated my career to keeping children and our communities safe and healthy," Pan said, whose statement on the issue says some doctors are "monetizing their exemption-granting authority and profiting from the sale of medical exemptions."

After participating in a media campaign that demonized doctors for doing exactly what the new law allowed them to and what Pan explicitly promised they would be allowed to do, Pan proposed a new bill: SB 276, which would put the power to grant medical exemptions into the hands of government bureaucrats.

 

You can read the whole thing here.

You may have heard that this bill has been amended, to assuage the concerns of California's governor Gavin Newsom that it gave too much power to government officials to make medical decisions for families. It is true that the bill has been amended, but there is no sense in which it reduces the power given to state officials. If anything, it broadens them. I will be getting a short blog out about that, hopefully later today. 

 

 

Daily Log: Report From FEECON 2019 - Part 1

 

 

So I almost didn't make it to FEECON 2019. The first part was entirely my mistake. (Or, as some might put it: The expected consequence of my not being fully skilled in navigating life in a police state.) I had just recently been approved for "TSA-Pre" status - I know, I was as surprised (and honestly, a little disappointed in myself) as you are. And what I knew, but then forgot, was that I had to bring my passport with me when traveling, because my TSA-Pre status and my passport are both in one of my names, while my driver's license is in another. I knew this. I just forgot. 

What that ended up meaning was that I got to spend several more hours in - NOT the worst place in the world (that title is reserved for a small hotel in Wuhan) but close to it. The Los Angeles International Airport.

Here's what was interesting about that: Every single person I interacted with there was lovely. Which really messed with my head. Because here we are being treated like cattle by the TSA, people who can literally molest us with impunity, here we are being sniffed by bomb-sniffing dogs, told we can't even carry a water bottle through security... and everyone seems really comfortable with it. 

There's obviously a very very dark side to that, and I've written about that elsewhere. But there is also a positive side, and it is this: Human beings are very very resilient. We are capable of tolerating a lot of crap. And while tolerating crap is not a good practice in life, it can be a strength. What I think I saw at LAX (again, NOT the worst place in the world), was people being strong enough to still be decent and happy, even in the face of all this crap. And the truth is probably that a great many of them don't even see it is crap. That by itself is both kind of nice and deeply horrifying.

The second thing that almost prevented me from getting to FEECON was that, as I was figuring out whether I was going to get on another flight with a name change, or have my husband bring my passport to me, I found out that our daughter's feeding tube was stuck! Our daughter has a feeding tube (long story), and sometimes it gets stuck for a short while and we can't get anything through it. Usually it resolves within 15-30 minutes, a few times it has gone as long as two hours. This time it had been more than four hours. 

This is a huge problem, because while she can eat by mouth, she won't usually take her medication by mouth, or all of the water she needs to have. Her caregivers had tried everything we knew to get it to work, I had spoken in depth to both her dietician and a nurse, to get ideas for getting it unstuck, and still it wouldn't budge. So, after my husband arrived with my passport, I realized that I wasn't going to be able to go to FEECON after all, at least not today. Maybe I could catch a flight out in the morning. So, we started the long drive back from LAX to Burbank.

Then, about ten minutes away from the aiport, we get a call - the tube is un-stuck! So we turn around, I run back in, catch another flight, and make it to Atlanta!

By the time I get to the hotel, it's around 1:00am. I am bleary eyed and wobbly from travel, and go check in - only to be told that I'll be on the 17th floor. Ordinarily, this would be just fine. But this particular hotel happened to have been designed by someone with a sick, sick, mind. It's one of those hotels that is open in the center, so when you're at the bottom and you look up, you see stacks and stacks of railings. When you go up to the top and look down, you want to scream and scream until all those railings stop spinning and your stomach comes back down from the top of your skull and you can just go and cry in a corner somewhere.

Oh, and the only elevators they have are glass. 

So that's how my trip started. I'll post more tomorrow - maybe I'll even talk about the conference.

Oh, and that's me with Michael Strong and his wife, Magatte Wade - both rockstars. After talking with Michael especially for many years now online, it was great to finally meet him. 

 

Daily Log: Taking a Break, Heading to FEECON, MailChimp Screws Over its Customers

 

 

 

I'm heading to Atlanta tomorrow, for FEECON, so I won't be posting until (probably) next week. If you don't know what that is, just watch the video. I've never been before, and am really looking forward to it! But then, getting out of the house at all is a big deal for me. Talking with grownups, getting a full night's sleep... this is going to be very exciting!

On the website for FEECON, it says that I should "dress to impress." So, I thought "great! A chance to wear this!"

 

 

But people told me that's not what they meant. So it dawned on me that I was going to have to go... shopping.

I'll save the traumatizing details for later. Just let me say that I'm grateful for those who pitched in at the last minute with some Rescue Clothes that I'll be taking to the conference. I'm not sure what I'll do with the things I "chose" at the big store with all the racks and mirrors. But I'm sure someone will be able to put them to good use.

And the news of the day? Well, over the weekend, MailChimp decided to unceremoniously cancel the accounts of some people who shared information that was critical of vaccines. No warning, no chance to get their data off the site, nothing. The accounts (and all the data, email lists, addresses, etc.) were just gone.

I'll be writing more about that, but for now, I'll just ask people to think about what kind of business behaves that way. Who treats their customers like this and thinks that they'll be able to survive in a competitive marketplace? Someone with some very special "partners" is who.

 

 

 

Daily Log: Unbelievable Asshattery from the UK, and My Little Girl's Second EEG

 

 

This is my little girl, when we first discovered that she was having seizures. This was her second EEG, which we did at home. I've never posted pictures of her on my blog before, or on social media at all outside of parent groups. But I've decided to now, for reasons maybe I'll go into at some point.

Aeriel has had seizures since she was somewhere between nine months and a year old. She has had one nearly-two-year period of being seizure free (we don't know why), and another brief seizure-free period of a couple of months. She is now - knock serious wood - seizure free again, and I don't know how to describe what a relief that is. And also, is not. Because we are always aware that they could come back at any time. But to go for days and days and not see a single seizure, when she had been having dozens every day - is pretty awesome.

CBD has helped her, but it didn't entirely get rid of her seizures. We finally found a med that has knocked them out (for now), but she is also on CBD. And seeing how much it has helped her, it just enrages me more than I can say to see what is happening to families like Teagan's, in England, where they have now had the cannabis they had to go overseas to procure seized from them at customs FOR THE SECOND TIME. And after getting a prescription for it.

Here is the story:

The mother of a severely epileptic nine-year-old girl has had medical cannabis seized at an airport for the second time, even though she had a private prescription for the medicine.

Emma Appleby was accompanied on her trip to the Netherlands by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who has campaigned for greater access to medical cannabis.

Although several cannabis-based medicines have been prescribed by the NHS since it was legalised in November, full extract cannabis oils – which campaigners say are both more effective and cheaper – remain unlicensed and do not appear to have been given to patients.

However, they are available privately and a number of patients have gained access in that way.

“There seems no end to the stress and trauma of trying to access the medical cannabis that I have proved beyond doubt transforms the life of my daughter Teagan,” said Appleby, who was carrying a month’s supply of medical cannabis oil worth about £2,500.

“I am exhausted and shattered but I’ve seen how this medicine transforms my daughter’s life. I have to find a way forward. The NHS just won’t prescribe. This is unforgivably cruel and unfair.”

...

 

Teagan has the same condition our daughter has, Dup15Q syndrome. Her mom is on some of my FaceBook parent groups. So their story particularly hits home for me. But I am outraged over anyone being forcibly prevented from accessing treatments that might help their children. (Or, as I have posted elsewhere, being forced to use medical treatments against their will.) Here's the kicker, from the article:

A government spokesman said: “It is unlawful to import unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use to the UK without a Home Office importation licence.

“There is an established regulatory system which enables the importation of these products to the UK via pharmaceutical wholesalers, so they can be dispensed to UK resident patients prescribed these products by a specialist doctor.”

He added: “Border Force has a duty to enforce the law and stop the unlawful import of controlled substances into the UK.”

 

And that's it. The law is the law, and there's no questioning it, or questioning those who enforce it. It's as if the Nuremberg trials never happened. As I've said a million times, and as I'll keep saying until I'm blue in the face, this is not civilized behavior. And a society that demands obedience to bad laws is not a civilized society. 

And I just wonder what it's going to take for enough people to wake up and stop tolerating this crap. To stop believing that the people with the guns and the prisons have some kind of legitimate authority over our lives. That they get to decide what medical treatments your child may have or may not have - or must have. What the hell is it going to take?

 

 

 

A Real Solution, from Caitlin Johnstone

 

 

 

Caitlin Johnstone​ absolutely nails it here.

"Those who control the narrative control the world. I'm fond of saying that, not just because it's true, but because it points to the solution as well as the problem. When you truly see that whoever controls the narrative controls the world, you can easily zero in on the inherent weakness in their power structure. And that weakness is: that it is all reliant on belief in THEIR stories. So when you attack their stories, when you shine truth on their lies, you are attacking their power base."

What then must we do?

"It's pretty f-ing simple: We tell the truth."

Oh, and substitute "anti-Beach-Baller" for "Assange", and the story is the same. Then, if you haven't already, ask yourself why I have to use the term "Beach Ball" in place of another word. Maybe turn down the volume and look at what's going on without the narrative.

 

 

A Very Interesting Take on the US Govt's Case Against Assange

 

This piece, from John T. Nelson, is well worth reading in its entirety. To summarize:

"Why might Assange not stand trial in the United States for espionage? ...the US-UK extradition treaty may strictly prohibit it. Espionage is generally considered a political offense, and the treaty forbids extraditing someone charged with political offenses.

"While the new charges may signal an intention to put Assange away for many years, they could alternatively be read as a sign that the Justice Department recognizes the weaknesses in its case for extradition. If prosecutors believed Assange to be beyond their grasp upon issuing the espionage indictment, this would effectively demote it from a genuine charging document to a more symbolic statement—proof of the United States’ ability to investigate exfiltration of secret government data and of its preparedness to prosecute those who publish it. Whether this symbolic gesture intends to deter future WikiLeaks-like activities or to intimidate traditional journalists (or both) would then become a legitimate question, but still mostly a theoretical one. It would also mean, of course, that the Sessions-Barr Justice Departments have put down a marker—the precedent of indicting a publisher under the Espionage Act—without having to undergo First Amendment scrutiny by the courts.

"On the other hand, if prosecutors still considered extradition likely, then one must ask why they have gone out of their way to complicate their mission by invoking espionage. In this version of events, either the Justice Department has foolishly made the case for Assange that he is being charged with a “political offense,” which is immune from extradition, or it has cunningly concluded that no such defense will stand regardless of the charges brought.

"If the Justice Department believed or still believes that it will one day try Assange for espionage, then bringing the charges while he is in Britain was appropriate under the Rule of Specialty, which requires that all substantive allegations be brought before the prisoner is rendered. Had the Department sprung new charges on him after he was in its custody, a legal challenge led either by the British or by Assange, if he could assert standing, would have ensued. Regardless of its outcome, this development would have undermined American credibility in future extradition cases.

"On the other hand, if prosecutors worried that the case for extradition was already weak, then the harm of further vindicating Assange’s defenses against extradition would be minimal in comparison to the effect of putting the fourth estate on notice through an aggressive indictment."

[Emphasis mine.]

 

 

Daily Log: Pulling Weeds

 

Now that we have a trampoline, I can let my little girl bounce and play on that while I do garden work, and don't need anyone else to supervise her. We did this today, and I spent a lot of time pulling weeds. I don't like to make these things personal, but... it IS personal. And I have to admit that I HATE those weeds. Especially the ones with the little spade-shaped leaves, that grow inches overnight and turn into these vicious, grasping, clenching vine-like things. I HATE them. And the thing about weeds, that I've come to realize after years of dealing with them is... they always come back. You pull them and you pull them and you try out the latest "sure-fire" technique for getting rid of them, or for not allowing them to grow in the first place, but damnit they just come back anyway. And you have to pull them all over again.

This one, in the picture, was a particularly nasty weed, and I have to say it got very personal this afternoon. The thing is, I let this one go for too long and it got huge. Huge like the size of a small bush - taller than my little orange tree whose roots I'm sure it was trying to strangle. So yes, it got personal. Strong words were used. But I got him. Ripped him up by the roots. And I don't like to feel that way about other living creatures. I don't want to feel as if the weeds are my "enemies." But they are. And I think, deep down inside their heartless little roots, they know they are, too.

Well that's all I have to say about weeds today. And this post counts as both the "personal" and "current events" portions of my log. 

 

 

Daily Log: Greek Heroes and Preserved Lemons

 

 

Yesterday, I participated in a webinar in which John Kiriakou told his story of blowing the whistle on the CIA's policy of torture, and of paying dearly for his heroic act. I had been vaguely aware of his story before, but hadn't really heard the details. It is riveting. I'll post the video here when it's available.

One of the things he talks about is how, unsurprisingly, the culture at the CIA pushes the idea that everything is a shade of grey. That there are no black and white situations, there is no right or wrong. But he saw very clearly that there was. And I wonder whether, if I had been in that environment, become a part of the culture, spent years there, trained there, learned to go along with the things everyone else accepted - I wonder whether I would have been good enough, or attuned enough, to not get sucked into seeing the world in those shades of grey. I don't kow whether I would have had the moral clarity to do what he did. It's so easy to judge a situation like the one he was in from the outside, and be so certain that you would do the right thing. But I'm not certain I would have. Now? Yes, probably I would. But when I was much younger? I don't know. 

This is a picture of the lemon preserves I make, with meyer lemons from our tree. This is before it all gets cooked up of course, and is still beautiful. But not yet yummy.