NJ's Senator Joe Vitale is on the move with another totalitarian tiptoe towards vaccine compliance

When politicians and government agencies identify a threat, pay close attention. Because the proposed solution to whatever “problem” they identify is likely the point. More often than not, there’s an agenda “lying in wait” for the right moment.

And when it comes to public health agendas, well publicized measles outbreaks are curated to be the right moment. So here we are… again.

Enter Senator Joe Vitale, Chair of NJ’s Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee and Senate Resolution 127, which “urges State citizens to stay up-to-date on vaccinations.”

While his official role here is as Chair of NJ’s Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, Senator Vitale’s most prominent role in the NJ legislature seems to be that of cultural narrative curator. And he’s quite skilled at this. Over the last several years, Vitale, along with former Assembly Health Chair, Herb Conaway, have pushed narratives that framed parental rights and religious and medical freedom as threats to “the greater good” as they pushed for medical mandates, lowering the age of consent and removing religious exemptions.

Meet the Doctor Behind NJ Vaccine Mandates

In 2019, they almost succeeded in removing NJ’s religious exemptions for vaccinations. But thanks to thousands of informed and determined New Jerseyans, the bill was defeated.

Since then, attempts have been made to circumvent the legislative process (NJ legislators don’t want thousands of parents back in Trenton and many are reluctant to alienate a growing number of New Jerseyans who are calling for informed choice.) Instead, the NJDOH, via its Public Health Council, has been considering “back door” policy changes to align school immunization requirements with current ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccine Practices) requirements which would result in the immediate addition of COVID, flu and HPV shots to attend school if adopted. This would obscure accountability and allow local officials to “just follow orders” as they defer to the CDC’s ACIP.

Meanwhile, SR127 appears to be a new approach to addressing the “problem” of declining vaccination rates and an increase in religious exemptions (aka more people making informed choices.) Think of it as a preface, because there’s certainly more to come.

From New Jersey Healthcare Alliance for Choice’s Melissa Alfieri-Collins:

Heads up, NJ families, SR127 is a red flag.

This bill doesn’t directly remove the religious exemption (RE), but it’s setting the stage by calling attention to its “misuse” and rising numbers. It paints a concerning narrative, one that suggests people are abusing the RE, instead of asking why so many families feel compelled to use it in the first place.

…This bill is complex. It doesn’t ban the RE, but it’s part of a broader strategy. Awareness and education are our best defense.

Read the bill here: https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/SR/127_I1.PDF

Get involved! Talk to your legislators! Build the relationships, now.

“Setting the stage” is exactly right. SR127’a verbiage weaves together a narrative that ultimately blames outbreaks on declining vaccinations rates, attributed at least in part to religious exemptions. (Correlation is not equal to causation… unless you’re looking for someone to blame for measles outbreaks.)

If you misconstrue this document to be a series of truths, you will likely believe that measles is very dangerous and its return is solely due to the unvaccinated, declining vaccination rates and the increased use of religious exemptions (and NOT mass vaccination campaigns during an outbreak with live vaccines that can shed, primary and secondary vaccine failure, a fabricated vaccine herd immunity threshold, collective impaired immunity or a steady influx of people from countries where measles circulates.)

You’d also be likely to believe that that 95 percent threshold is rooted in science.

In 2024, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that only 93 percent of kindergarteners in the United States had received their measles vaccination, falling two percent short of the threshold of 95 percent needed to prevent transmission.

SR127 would also have you believing that vaccines are safe, effective and the best way to protect and preserve public health. But these are all well-funded stories written by people with agendas.

There’s more to the story however. Here’s some additional perspective on that story -an article I wrote back in 2019, when Senator Vitale made his last big push to remove religious exemptions:

Is Vaccine Compliance Equivalent to Public Health Safety?

Anyone getting their news from mainstream media is likely to believe that the best way to keep our population healthy and protect people from infectious disease is to make sure EVERYONE is vaccinated. In fact, many people seem to think it's the ONLY way to preserve public health. The WHO, CDC and federal and state legislators are pushing for total vaccine compliance as though our very lives depended on everyone around us getting every available vaccine. But is this true?

We regularly hear that vaccines are "safe and effective," but how can we make such a blanket statement about an evolving vaccination schedule that includes ever changing vaccine combinations and a growing list of vaccines? The truth is we can't. The US Supreme Court regards vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe." The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, along with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), was created in 1986^[1] to remove liability^[2] and protect pharmaceutical companies from the avalanche of vaccine-related lawsuits they were getting at that time, mostly for injuries from the DPT vaccine, so that pharmaceutical companies would agree to continue producing vaccines.

Once protected from liability, vaccine manufacturers lobbied to expand the CDC-recommended childhood vaccination schedule from 24 doses in the 1980s to a whopping 72 doses, effectively tripling the number of shots a child would receive by the age of 18. And the list of CDC-recommended vaccines continues to grow.

None of the pre-licensure clinical trials of currently recommended vaccines included an inert (saline) placebo as a control to properly assess vaccine safety, and each vaccine package insert provides an extensive list of adverse reactions, which have been reported as part of post-licensure surveillance. For example, the MMR vaccine package insert lists conditions like encephalitis, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, anaphylaxis, and many more.^[3]

But for those who are willing to overlook the known and unknown risks of vaccination, let's examine vaccine efficacy. Research shows that 2-10% of vaccine recipients do not create antibodies (primary vaccine failure)^[4] and, since antibodies from vaccines wane over time, secondary vaccine failure regularly occurs, creating a need for boosters. Since individual responses to vaccines vary considerably, with regards to both the production and the rate of decline of antibodies, disease prevention can never be guaranteed.

This brings us to the perceived back-up protection of "herd immunity," which is the primary argument used to support the use of vaccine mandates and the removal of exemptions in the name of public health. Vaccine-induced "herd immunity" is a theory that assumes that vaccination can substitute for wild exposure, but both science and history have already demonstrated that this is not the case.

The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 along with the promise of lifelong immunity after just one shot. At that time it was believed - based on the work of A. W. Hedrich, who studied community measles outbreaks in pre-vaccine era - that 65-68% of measles-immune children in the community was sufficient to extinguish an outbreak.^[5] Based on this figure, public health officials predicted that measles could be eliminated by 1967.^[6] Needless to say that prediction did not materialize, as it was based on Hedrich's observations in naturally-immune communities, rather than in vaccinated communities, and the public health's "herd immunity" threshold goal has instead been arbitrarily raised to 95%. But outbreaks happen even at this level of vaccination compliance.^[7]

In other words, we have learned since initiating a mass vaccination program against measles over 50 years ago that vaccine-induced immunity is not equal to immunity acquired naturally, and neither immunologists nor vaccinologists know exactly why. Even the Mayo Clinic's measles expert Dr. Gregory Poland acknowledges:

"The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons."^[8]

It is becoming apparent that "herd immunity" cannot be established via vaccination, regardless of compliance. So it is not surprising that legislators are already considering the next level of draconian measures, which include detention centers and quarantines, over what in a not-so-distant past was perceived as a benign childhood illness.

Mass vaccination programs have also created two other public health threats: viral shedding from live attenuated (weakened) vaccines and adaptation of target pathogens to vaccine-selection pressure.

The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), rotavirus, varicella (chicken pox), shingles and FluMist are examples of live attenuated vaccines used in the U.S. Those vaccinated with live attenuated vaccines can shed vaccine-strain virus for weeks and potentially infect others following vaccination^{[9] [10][11]}. And while we no longer use the Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) in the U.S., most cases of paralytic polio that occur in the countries that still use it are attributable to the OPV vaccine-derived cVDPV2 strain.^[12]

Additionally, vaccines for diphtheria and pertussis do not prevent colonization and transmission of bacteria that cause these diseases and instead can potentially create asymptomatic carriers of these bacteria among the vaccinated.^[13][14]

Pathogen adaptation under vaccine-selection pressure is another unanticipated complication of our mass vaccination campaigns. When this happens, vaccinating against the originally-dominant strain(s) results in epidemiological shift to other disease-causing strains, which are not covered by the vaccine. This phenomenon has been observed with HPV^[15], hepatitis B^[16] , pneumococcal disease^[17] and Haemophilus influenzae^[18] to name a few.

All of this brings us to our current predicament. The U.S. is in the midst of a chronic disease epidemic, stemming from environmental and iatrogenic causes, that has left many of us with dysregulated immune systems. The resultant inflammation and autoimmunity is often treated with immune-suppressing drugs, rendering us more vulnerable to developing complications from even benign infections. And despite high vaccination rates, which should be providing "herd immunity" if vaccines could indeed provide such a thing, outbreaks of vaccine-targeted diseases continue to occur in highly vaccinated populations. Furthermore, we are exposed to countless other pathogens for which there are no vaccines.

But, in order to strip away informed consent rights that interfere with the enforcement of full vaccine compliance, the government continues to disregard the science and insist that it's only the unvaccinated children who pose a public health threat to their society. New York, California, and several other U.S. states have already eliminated religious and personal belief exemptions, forcing families who object to vaccination to remove their children from school. And now, thanks to California's SB276/SB714, even the medical exemptions that doctors provided to medically fragile children (many of whom have already experienced vaccine injury or had a vaccine-injured family member) have also been effectively eliminated.

The discussion is now shifting to focus on vaccinating the adults. The goal here is clearly 100% compliance from cradle-to-grave. But will that achieve public health safety and alleviate our fears, as we continue to see outbreaks happening despite measures that coerce more and more people into vaccination?

So what do we stand to gain by forcing Americans to submit their bodies to the pursuit of the unachievable goal of "herd immunity"? Even 100% vaccine compliance can, at best, provide fleeting protection from some diseases on an individual basis. But it won't stop outbreaks. And when every living person is fully vaccinated with all available vaccines, what will the next requirement for Americans be in the public health war on disease?

The true cost of vaccine compliance will likely be the forfeiture of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we know it.

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-compliance-equivalent-public-health-safety

If only legislators were interested in getting to the root of vaccine hesitancy…

The Secret to Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy

But let’s not hold our collective breath. Instead, if you live in New Jersey, consider Melissa Alfieri-Collins’ advice and start reaching out to our representatives. You can find them here.