Medical Tyranny in Action in Oregon

Medical Tyranny in Action in Oregon: Doctor and Senator wants Medical Freedom for herself, but Not Oregon Citizens

As we have previously reported, the state of Oregon wants to take away the right to informed consent and vaccine choice and mandate vaccines for all children statewide. The bill was introduced by Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, a State Senator in Oregon who is also a medical doctor.

The public attended a hearing on the bill last week, and much of it was video-taped. In the clip above, attorney Robert Snee from Portland is shown addressing the Senate Committee on Health Care, which includes Hayward.

Attorney Snee begins in this clip by addressing the American Medical Association’s published Code of Ethics which states physicians may claim a religious or philosophical reason not to be immunized. Snee makes the point that if physicians have the right to such exemptions, how is it legal to take that right away from citizens of the State?

Attorney Snee then quoted from an article published in the American Academy of Family Physicians featuring Oregon Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, M.D. In the article, Hayward is addressing the issues she was facing with taking drugs during pregnancy. Dr. Hayward suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS), and according to the article abstained from taking her MS drugs during pregnancy because of her presumed concern over her unborn child.

After her second child was born, according to the article, she consulted with a neurologist about her options in breastfeeding her second child:

The subspecialist informed Steiner Hayward in no uncertain terms that she was going to start interferon therapy immediately and she would not be allowed to breastfeed.

“Breastfeeding protects against autoimmune disorders, and I have MS,” she said, laughing and shaking her head. “So I did the research and told her I thought interferon was too big to get into breast milk and that I was going to go ahead and breastfeed.

“She, of course, thought I was crazy and told me I was not to do that. So I went out and found another neurologist who respected the fact that I was an FP and I knew what I was talking about, and he agreed that (breastfeeding) was OK.” (Source.)

At this point in his testimony, Attorney Snee was stopped by Steiner Hayward who was sitting just across from him, in a very visibly upset tone, claiming that the attorney was “impugning her integrity” by relaying the story from the American Academy of Family Physicians article.

She then went on to explain why she disagreed with her doctor’s recommendation not to take her MS drugs and continue breastfeeding, based on her own research and what she felt was “best for my child.” She states:

So I would be very grateful if you did not take my decision, my personal decision about my medical care out of context.

Attorney Snee responded that he had no intention of impugning anyone, but that he was simply pointing out that the sponsor of the bill in Oregon who wanted to take away the right to informed consent on medical procedures such as vaccines made a decision to disagree with a medical treatment that affected someone else, and that her right to do so was the same right citizens were seeking to retain for themselves.

Watch the video above. This is a perfect example of medical tyranny in action in the United States of America, happening right in the legislative branch of the Oregon State government.

Elizabeth Steiner Hayward wants the right to make her own personal medical decisions for her and her children, even if means disagreeing with a medical specialist who presumably had more knowledge than her in the matter of the pharmaceutical product she was considering.

However, this medical doctor, who is also a lawmaker, does not want anyone else in Oregon to have the same freedom of choice in regards to other medical products like vaccines. This would include other doctors and medical professionals who do not share the same views on vaccines and the science behind them as does Steiner Hayward, so she wants to use the power of government to force everyone else to believe like she does.

One of the doctors in Oregon who would be forced to give some vaccines to patients that he presently does not give vaccines to, would be Paul Thomas, M.D., FAAP. Dr. Thomas is a board-certified fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He also testified against SB 442 in front of the Senate Committee on Health Care in Oregon:

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com Next Public Hearing on Oregon Bill SB 442

There is another public hearing scheduled on SB 442 for March 9, 2015. If you would like to tell Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward how you feel about this bill, here is how to contact her:

Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward Democrat – District 17 – NW Portland/Beaverton Capitol Phone: 503-986-1717 Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-215, Salem, Oregon 97301 Email: Sen.ElizabethSteinerHayward@state.or.us Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/steinerhayward Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorElizabethSteinerHayward - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/medical-tyranny-in-action-in-oregon-doctor-and-senator-wants-medical-freedom-for-herself-but-not-oregon-citizens/#sthash.p6PFO5ZV.dpuf

What is wrong with having a right to informed consent on medical procedures such as vaccines?

Why are those who question the efficacy of vaccines maligned?

Why are their characters impugned because they dare to challenge the purported “conventional wisdom” with regards to vaccines?

Why don’t their concerns about their children matter?

Why is it so damned important to inject children with a “witches brew” of vaccines at such an early age?

If vaccines are so damned effective, then those who choose to get vaccinated shouldn’t be concerned about those who aren’t, right? Look at how successful the flu vaccine “lottery” is every year.

IOW, you advocate that the state has the “right” to determine what is and is not appropriate in these instances. That parent’s rights are irrelevant, as long as you get yours.

Since many outbreaks of polio are currently linked to the vaccine itself, that might not be the best hypothetical card to play.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/18/E1303.full.pdf

In 2005, it was reported that children in a small village in the United States had contracted vaccine-derived polio. In Nigeria, >70 cases have been reported. In 2006, ∼1600 cases of vaccine-induced polio occurred in India, according to the Indian Medical Association Sub-Committee on Immunisation's report on the Polio Eradication Initiative [3]. The point to be noted is that these cases were reported during repeated mass-immunization campaigns in which repeated doses of OPV were administered. In 2008, many cases of polio were reported in all provinces of Pakistan, where OPV is used for repeated mass-immunization campaigns. These vaccine-related cases are big challenge for the scientific community if the polio-eradication goal is to be achieved, and there is a need for prompt action to combat the issue [1–5]...

...The above observations suggest that OPV has lost its effectiveness in providing herd immunity. It seems that children are getting polio from OPV, and it also seems that OPV is proving to be ineffective in stopping polio transmission from another source. Therefore, the whole world—and especially developing countries—should shift from OPV to IPV, in my opinion. There is still a need for active research in exploring various vaccine strategies for polio and to combat adverse effects associated with polio vaccination; otherwise, the dream of polio eradication will never come true [2–4].

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/8/1287.full

Nineteen outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived polio virus(cVDPV) have been documented in that same period, resulting in 536 cases in some 17 countries, the majority in Africa, Rosenbauer says. One outbreak in Nigeria has been ongoing since 2005[this is a 2011 article...my edit], with 13 new cases reported so far this year

Are you an infant, pregnant woman, or immunocompromised individual?

Further, if you are a infant you can thank a vaccine for reducing the time you have immunity provided by your mother via breast feeding.(A woman who had measles provides immunity to her baby via breastfeeding for 12-15 month. A vaccinated woman only provides immunity for 6 months). http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/06/24/measles-and-measles-vaccines-fourteen-things-to-consider-by-roman-bystrianyk-co-author-dissolving-illusions-disease-vaccines-and-the-forgotten-history/

If you are pregnant, why did you not get your vaccines as a child?

If immunocompromised, have you been so since birth? If not, then why did you not get your immunizations as an infant? Additionally, if you are immunocompromised, you are susceptible to any disease not just viruses that have a vaccine available. You should reduce your exposure to the public regardless.

If you are none of the above, aren't you just someone who wants to make other make the same medical decisions as you?

On a side note, I just got a head cold from a vaccinated petri dish(ie a person) last week. It is the first illness I have had in three years. Even the vaccinated can carry diseases.

What percentage of the populace must get vaccinated in order to provide herd immunity?
(A John Hopkins study from 1993 states between 70-95% depending upon the virus http://www.op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf ).

Along those lines, here are excerpts from CDC reports on recent measles outbreaks. I have mostly included the numbers of vaccinated that have been infected, They would not be the at risk class indicated in herd/community immunity picture that you cited since they in fact have been vaccinated. What is the explanation for such a high rate of failure in their immunization?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a6.htm?s_cid=mm6316a6_e

Eleven (19%) patients had documentation of 2 or more valid doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, including two children and nine adults. Three health-care personnel had documentation of serologic evidence of immunity before exposure, and one additional patient was found to have serologic evidence of immunity when tested as part of a contact investigation before symptom onset.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6322a4.htm?s_cid=mm6322a4_w

or who had an unknown vaccination status (58 [20%]); 30 (10%) were in persons who were vaccinated

Given the 90+% vaccination rate with MMR(the 20% of unknown are likely 18% vaccinated) for a grand total of 28% vaccinated getting the illness.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6336a5.htm

three had received 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, and one had received 2 doses.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm?s_cid=mm6406a5_w http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm?s_cid=mm6406a5_w

Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm?s_cid=mm6020a7_w

Among the 45 U.S. residents aged 12 months−19 years who acquired measles, 39 (87%) were unvaccinated
That means 13% were vaccinated.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm

Thirteen (8%) of the patients had been vaccinated, of whom three had received 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6406a5.htm?s_cid=mm6406a5_w

five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.

Given that community/herd immunity for measles requires a immunity base greater than 92%( http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/herd-immunity ). How do you achieve community immunity with a vaccine that fails to provide immunity up to 19% of the time?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.