Broken Promises; Coventry School District Throws Out Students For Not Complying With The HPV Vaccine Mandate

cropped-13595455_1247188778633185_372670439_n.jpg

Media Contact
Aimee Gardiner, Director
(401)406-2647

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 10, 2017

Broken Promises; Coventry School District Throws Out Students For Not Complying With The HPV Vaccine Mandate

Providence, RI- Today, Coventry Middle School sent home teen students that were not in compliance with the mandate of the HPV vaccine. The RI Dept of Health had stated on record that no students will lose class time over the HPV vaccine mandate. Rhode Islanders Against Mandated HPV Vaccinations argued that having a mandate with no intention to enforce it was reason to remove the mandate in itself. Now students are losing class time over a vaccine mandate for a virus not spread by casual contact.

“I was very angry to hear about the situation today. My daughter had recently graduated from a weekly truancy program in regards to her attendance, and I couldn’t believe they would do something for her to lose more school time. She is nervous after working so hard to be on track that this will negatively effect her attendance records again. I don’t understand how kids can get kicked out for something like that. I think it is stupid,” said Ms. Testa about the girls getting dismissed today.

According to Ms. Testa’s daugher, the girls were removed from first period class and held in the office until someone came to pick them up, not allowed to go to the bathroom either. Two other girls stated they did receive the vaccine, but the school stated they didn’t have the paperwork, and all three girls were sent home.

“When I first got the phone call of this situation, my first thought was how ironic that the first school to have a school committee to remit a resolution in support of removing the HPV vaccine from the required list of vaccines for school, was the same district to send students home due to non-compliance. Here is a prime example of why this mandate is completely unreasonable. Currently, there are two bills introduced in the house and two bills in the senate, that support parental rights and to remove the HPV vaccine mandate. Rhode Islanders against mandated HPV vaccinations calls upon the RI legislators to rise up, and pass the bills that remove this mandate and put the power of medical private choice back in the parents hands,” said Aimee Gardiner, Director of Rhode Islanders against mandated HPV vaccinations.

Senator Raptakis has reaffirmed for the second year in a row that the HPV vaccine mandate should be removed from the schedule of vaccines. His bill S0047 is one of two that will be heard by the Senate Heath & Human Services committee, the hearing has not yet been scheduled. Coventry is in Senator Raptakis’ district #33.
———————————————-

 

Citizens must speak out to the committee members of the Statehouse, and tell them to pass the bills that reverse the mandate of the HPV vaccine.

A prewritten email can be sent. One to the house committee and a second to the senate committee. CLICK HERE to send both emails.

 


 

update;

Ms Testa speaks on circumstance in short clip, made by TruthRadioShow.com

Advertisements

Legislative Alert April 5th

Legislative Alert April 5th

LEGISLATIVE ALERT

WEDNESDAY APRIL 5TH 4:30PM

Two bills will be heard by the House Health, Education, and Welfare Committee this week. H 5919 and H 5986 will be heard in Room 101 approx. 4:30p April 5th Agenda
Now it is time to show up and show the committee you are serious, you want this passed. We created a Facebook event also so that it is even easier to invite others and share on social media to spread awareness.

If you work and are unable to attend. Email the HEW Committee Secretary. Lisa Cataldi  lcataldi@rilegislature.gov  401.222.2296, please copy us on the email too admin@nohpvmandateri.com

This statement or similar;
” I am writing in regards to bills H 5919 and H 5986. I fully support these bills and their support of parental rights for their children. I would like my name and statement documented and forwarded to the H.E.W. Committee Members, to support and pass these two pieces of legislation.

Thank you,
<Name> <address>”

We sincerely thank you for supporting the efforts of getting these bills passed now and in the future.

#NOHPVmandateRI Team

www.NOHPVmandateRI.com

 Facebook Discussion Group

 

Parents Would* Support School HPV Vaccine Requirements if Offered Opt-Out

Most Parents Would Support School HPV Vaccine Requirements if
Offered Opt-Out Provisions
By Carrie Printz
Researchers recently found that parents are more likely to support laws that would make the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for school entry if their state offered
opt-out provisions. However, the researchers added that such provisions may weaken the impact of these mandates. The study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, was led by William Calo, PhD, JD, a postdoctoral research associate in the department of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

1
He and his colleagues conducted a web-based survey of 1501 parents between November 2014 and January 2015. Respondents had to have at least 1 child aged 11 to 17 years living primarily in their household. The survey asked parents about this statement: “Some states are trying to pass laws that would require all 11- and 12-year olds to get the HPV vaccine before they are allowed to start 6th grade.” Overall, 21% of participants agreed that such laws were a good idea, 54% disagreed, and 25% said they neither agreed nor disagreed.
Dr. Calo says that the latter group may benefit from public education regarding HPV vaccination and, as they learn about the benefits of vaccination, be more likely to support school- entry requirements. The respondents who disagreed that the laws were a good
idea were presented with a follow-up statement: “Is it okay to have these laws only if parents can opt out when they want to?” When this provision was added, approximately 57% of respondents agreed that school-entry requirements were a good idea whereas 21% disagreed.
Among other findings:
• Nearly one-third of respondents believed that the vaccine was being promoted to make money for drug companies.

• Approximately 40% believed that the vaccine was effective in preventing cervical cancer.
Dr. Calo notes that changing some of those perceptions would help to improve HPV vaccination rates along with legislating school-entry requirements. He adds that any opt-
out provisions also have the potential to weaken the overall effectiveness of HPV vaccination if large numbers of families opt out. As a result, such an option also should include an educational component to encourage patients to carefully consider their decision, he says. States should consider school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination after implementing other approaches, such as centralizing vaccination reminders in state health departments, focusing on HPV vaccination during quality improvement visits to providers, and training physicians to use announcements to introduce vaccination, Dr. Calo notes.

#NOHPVmandateRI comments;

Why does any parent feel it is okay to mandate something that has no impact on a school classroom just because there is an opt out?
No it is not. We should not let the government think they can put more regulations and laws upon our bodies and our children’s bodies. This vaccine has nothing to do with public health policy. It is not transmitted in a casual school or work environment.

HPV Vaccines: Betrayal of the Public Trust?

HPV Vaccines: Betrayal of the Public Trust?

In 2013 multiple news articles reported 44% of American parents refusing Gardasil or Cervarix for their children. Between 2008 and 2010, the percentage of parents concerned about the safety of these two vaccines nearly quadrupled. As of 2010, only 32% of eligible girls were vaccinated against HPV. What is wrong with this picture?

Excerpts from national news sources, March 18-22, 2013:

  • USA Today The percentage of parents who say they won’t have their teen daughters vaccinated against the human papillomavirus increases, even though physicians increasingly recommend the vaccinations. Concerns about safety and side effects for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have increased among parents: 16% cited these fears as the main reason they did not have their daughters vaccinated in 2010, up from 5% in 2008…
  • Medpage Today Parents increasingly say they are worried about the safety of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and don’t intend to vaccinate their teen daughters… But there is no similar pattern for two other vaccines aimed at adolescents…
  • CNN Health Concerns of mothers and fathers about the safety of the HPV vaccine grew each year, from 4.5% in 2008 to 16.4% in 2010… The number of parents who said they would not vaccinate their children for HPV increased from 38.9% in 2008 to 43.9% in 2010. The main concern was safety.
  • CBS News One of the main reasons parents said they didn’t want their children vaccinated against HPV was because of safety concerns.
  • Bloomberg The number of girls who received either injection (Gardasil or Cervarix) rose to about one-third in 2010 from 16 percent in 2008…
  • FiercePharma A growing share of U.S. parents say they won’t vaccinate their daughters… And that leaves Merck’s Gardasil and GSK’s Cervarix with a shrinking market.
  • The New York Timessuggesting, the need for interventions beyond clinical recommendations like possibly ‘state and federally designed social marketing campaigns.’… Without brushing aside the need to address safety concerns, the increasing rates of HPV vaccine refusal suggest that widespread vaccination will require more than marketing campaigns. Medical professionals need to look for ways to tell a better story to parents and teens about HPV, vaccination and cancer. (emphasis added)

Taxpayer funded social marketing campaigns? Look for ways to ‘tell a better story’ to parents? Who are these people kidding? What happened to investigative journalism? What happened to fact-finding? What happened to fair and balanced journalism?

Has no one considered the possibility that the 43.9% of parents refusing this particular vaccine might have some valid concerns? When will people realize there is a huge difference between ‘increasingly concerned about the safety’ and ‘increasingly aware of the potential risks’? After all, this would not be the first time a prescription medication approved by the FDA as ‘safe and effective’ turned out to be nothing of the sort. Will HPV vaccines be next?

HPV vaccination programs worldwide are based on two assumptions. First, HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancer and save lives. Second, HPV vaccines will pose no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, it would make sense to vaccinate as many pre-adolescent girls as possible to reduce the worldwide burden of cervical cancer. What happens if both of these assumptions are not based on factual evidence?[1]

Medical Consumers Want to Know:

  1. Since HPV vaccines have never been shown to prevent cervical cancer, why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?1
  2. Since the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of abnormal lesions associated with cervical cancer development clear spontaneously without medical treatment, how can these factors be used as ‘end-points’ during clinical trials to reliably predict the number of cervical cancer cases that could be prevented by HPV vaccines?1
  3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce false negatives?1
  4. Why are HPV vaccines marketed so aggressively in developed countries, when 85.5% of annual cervical cancer cases and 87.9% of annual cervical cancer deaths occur in developing countries?[2]
  5. How can passive adverse event monitoring systems (voluntary reporting with no penalty for failure to report), such as those used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide, allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?
  6. How can accurate estimates of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigations of suspected vaccine reactions are not conducted?

The FDA granted Merck’s HPV vaccine, Gardasil, fast track approval in June of 2006, despite the fact that this HPV vaccine failed to meet the FDA criteria for fast track approval.[3] FDA approval of GSK’s HPV vaccine, Cervarix, followed shortly after in January 2007.

According to The New York Times, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended adding HPV vaccines to the immunization schedule in the U.S. despite the fact that 64% of the advisory committee members had potential conflicts of interest which were either never disclosed or left unresolved at the time they voted. 3% of the members actually voted on matters they had been barred from considering by ethics officers. News like this certainly does little to enhance the level of public trust.

Is it possible for the FDA to objectively monitor the safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines? One has to wonder since Congress tightened the rules on outside consulting after similarly undisclosed conflicts of interest were discovered within advisory committees at the FDA.

As if this is not enough, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, via the National Institutes of Health, Office of Technology Transfer receives royalties on each HPV vaccine sold worldwide. This happens because technologies used in the production of HPV vaccines were developed at NIH and subsequently patented by them. For three of the last five years, HPV vaccines based on recombinant papillomavirus capsid proteins have ranked #1 based on royalties from product sales.[4]

Marketing Gardasil to the public under these circumstances is a typical case of unconstrained government self-dealing. The major patent holder (National Cancer Institute/NCI), the regulator (FDA) and the vaccination policy maker (CDC) are all divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). These self-dealings typically benefit some administrators, not the government or tax payers.  For example, Dr. Julie Gerberding, as the Director of the CDC, approved the use of Gardasil for cervical cancer prevention as a public health policy is now the president of Merck’s Vaccine division promoting the sales of Gardasil.

How much revenue is generated for the NIH from international sales of HPV vaccines? In November 2010, Dr. Eric Suba submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Office of Government Information Services to discover the amount. It seems the financial details of the partnership between the NIH, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are exempt from disclosure. (Read the response received here.) Apparently, transparency in government does not apply to the top 20 revenue producing patent(s) developed at taxpayer expense. Why is the public not allowed to share in celebrating the success of products they financed?

Three Strikes for Gardasil?

  1. September 2011: Recombinant HPV DNA L1 gene DNA fragments, possibly attached to the aluminum adjuvant, were discovered in 100% of Gardasil samples tested. There was no subsequent investigation. The FDA simply declared the ‘expected’ presence of residual DNA is not a safety factor. No documentation was provided. The fact that HPV vaccines were approved by governments worldwide based on manufacturers’ assertions that the vaccines contained ‘no viral DNA’ was completely ignored.[5], [6] The possibility of recombinant HPV DNA fragments being attached to aluminum adjuvant particles was also ignored.
  2. August 2012: One of the antigens used in Gardasil was discovered in central nervous system samples from two girls who died after being vaccinated with Gardasil. No cause of death was identified upon autopsy in either case.[7] HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments of vaccine origin apparently attached to aluminum adjuvant particles were also discovered in post mortem blood and spleen samples of a girl who died 6 months after Gardasil injections.[8], [9]
  3. February 2013: It was discovered that the naked HPV 16 L1 gene fragments bound to aluminum particles by ligand exchange in Gardasil have acquired a non-B conformation. This conformational change may have stabilized the HPV 16 gene fragments in Gardasil preventing their normal enzymatic degradation in vaccine recipients.[10], [11] Non-B DNA conformations and their relationship to diseases has been studied since the 1960’s. Based on current scientific knowledge, the human genetic consequences of these non-B DNA structures are approximately 20 neurological diseases, approximately 50 genomic disorders and several psychiatric diseases.[12], [13] The impact of injected foreign non-B DNA on human health is totally unknown. 

Why have none of these discoveries sparked a single investigation in any country? Why is no one concerned when genetically modified viral DNA fragments are found in vaccines that are reported to have no viral DNA? Why is no one worried about those viral DNA fragments being attached to aluminum (a known toxin) possibly creating a new chemical compound of unknown toxicity? Why are no red flags raised when those viral DNA fragments attached to aluminum acquire a non-B conformation – something known to be associated with multiple debilitating diseases? Anyone with an ounce of common sense should demand to know why those charged with approval, recommendation and safety monitoring of these vaccines appear to be utterly unconcerned about the future health implications of any one of these discoveries, much less all three of them.

What kind of ‘expert’ advice is being given to YOUR government health officials?

Israel’s Advisory Committee on Infectious Diseases and Inoculations held a teleconference on 30 January 2013, to discuss the proposed introduction of HPV vaccines into the country’s school inoculation program among other issues. The official transcript of that meeting, dated 11 February 2013, provides some interesting insights for medical consumers who question HPV vaccine safety.

Ron Dagan, MD, is Professor of Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and Director of the Pediatric Infectious Disease Unit at the Soroka University Medical Center, also in Beer-Sheva. An active researcher and international lecturer, Dr. Dagan’s work focuses on new conjugate vaccines. His expert advice to Israel’s Advisory Committee regarding potential HPV vaccine implementation is as follows (translation provided-emphasis added):

We are dealing with injections, some of which given in 3 [separate] doses, which are delivered to teenage girls. Many side effects are to be expected. During the week following the vaccine delivery of the injections many serious events which are not related/linked to the vaccination are expected: fainting, deaths and convulsions/fits. This needs to be taken into account. Even if it is not rational, if these events happen in class they may damage the general perception/status of the vaccinations. This is happening all over the world all the time. We have already dealt with a similar issue in relation to the delivery of MMR with TD and Polio and we have accepted the nurse’s proposal to split these between grades 1 and 2. The nurses are suitable to make recommendations to the committee in relation to this issue. In relation to the side effects, we need to be prepared in advance and not simply react after the fact. I propose we consult with the English representatives as to how they’ve gone about this. We must prepare for the delivery of the new vaccine. The nurses need to know they are going about this in the way they are most comfortable with (/have the most control over/familiarity with).

If this is an example of the expert advice vaccination programs are based on, it’s no wonder medical consumers are questioning HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need. Many side effects are to be expected? Fainting, deaths, convulsions and fits occurring during the week following vaccination – yet not related to the vaccine? Preparing in advance for side effects? Consulting with other countries to see how they handled the problem? Are countries around the world being offered similar expert advice?

So, what will it take to solve the HPV vaccine uptake problem?

Parental concerns about HPV vaccine safety are not going to go away in response to social media campaigns. Teaching medical professionals to ‘tell a better story’ is not going to make parents change their mind about Gardasil, Cervarix, or any future HPV vaccine. Platitudes and unsubstantiated reassurances are no longer sufficient.

The time has come for government health authorities to make HPV vaccine manufacturers prove their claims or pull their products from the market. Medical consumers want scientifically proven facts – Safe, Affordable, Necessary and Effective – nothing less is acceptable.


The above article is from SaneVax.org and was written in 2013. This information is still valid and a reminder is in order for the current fight for our rights around the country and in RI about the HPV vaccine. #InformedConsent is essential and very important points are not being disclosed.

Since this article was published, last month there was a change in the dosing scheduled suggestions by the CDC. Where children under age 15 only need to receive two doses vs three doses. More specific details also apply.

Now on Nov 18th the CDC will hold a training to teach health care workers how to encourage the HPV vaccine and how to understand the new dosing recommendations by the CDC from Oct 2016.

Share this blog post with your legislator and schedule a time to sit down and speak with them.

Who opposes HPV mandate?

Who opposes HPV mandate?

Who is in support of reversing the mandate of the HPV vaccine?

Below is a chart of legislators in RI and their stated position in regards to the mandate. We hope you will use this in your voting decisions and be sure to support the candidates that support our efforts. The loudest voice you have with the General Assembly is with your vote, use it.

YES = Fully supports reversing the mandate and keeping the choice private with the family. Yes, vote for these candidates

NO = Legislators that do not support reversing the mandate

*Legislators that have indicated they support choice and parental rights but have not stated they support reversing the mandate.

Avoided= avoided giving a direct answer of opposing or supporting the mandate

xx = Sponsored bills in last session to support our cause

<> = co-signed on bills last session to support our cause

EDITH H AJELLO Democrat 01
RAYMOND M MATHIEU Independent 01
CHRISTOPHER R BLAZEJEWSKI Democrat 02
MARK G TEOLI Republican 02
MOIRA JAYNE WALSH Democrat 03
J. AARON REGUNBERG Democrat 04
ROLAND JOSEPH LAVALLEE Republican 05  YES
MARCIA RANGLIN-VASSELL Democrat 05
RAYMOND A HULL Democrat 06
DANIEL P MCKIERNAN Democrat 07  YES
GRANT A VANECK Independent 07  YES
JOHN JOSEPH LOMBARDI Democrat 08
ANASTASIA P WILLIAMS Democrat 09
SCOTT A SLATER Democrat 10
GRACE DIAZ Democrat 11
JOSEPH S ALMEIDA Democrat 12
LUIS ANTONIO VARGAS Independent 12  YES
RAMON A PEREZ Democrat 13
CHARLENE LIMA Democrat 14
STEVEN FRIAS Republican 15
NICHOLAS A MATTIELLO Democrat 15  NO
PATRICK E VALLIER Independent 15
ROBERT B LANCIA Republican 16  YES
CHRISTOPHER T MILLEA Democrat 16
ROBERT B JACQUARD Democrat 17
ARTHUR HANDY Democrat 18
DAVID D MASTRIANO Independent 19  YES
JOSEPH MCNAMARA Democrat 19
DAVID A BENNETT Democrat 20
DANIEL ELLIOTT Independent 20  YES
ANDREW C KNUTTON Independent 21
MICHAEL W PENTA Republican 21
MICHAEL L UNDERWOOD Independent 21  YES
CAMILLE F VELLA WILKINSON Democrat 21
ELIZABETH K SMITH Independent 22
JOSEPH J SOLOMON JR Democrat 22
K JOSEPH SHEKARCHI Democrat 23  YES  <>
STACIA HUYLER Republican 24
EVAN P SHANLEY Democrat 24
JARED R NUNES Democrat 25
VINCENT MARZULLO Independent 26
PATRICIA L MORGAN Republican 26  YES  <>
ANTHONY J PAOLINO Democrat 26
MARK E BOURGET Independent 27
PATRICIA A SERPA Democrat 27  YES
RYAN M HALL Democrat 28
ROBERT A NARDOLILLO Republican 28  YES  <>
SHERRY ROBERTS Republican 29  YES  xx  <>
LISA P TOMASSO Democrat 29
ANTONIO GIARRUSSO Republican 30
JULIE A CASIMIRO Democrat 31
MICHAEL PAUL MARFEO Republican 31
ROBERT E CRAVEN SR Democrat 32
MARK S ZACCARIA Republican 32  YES
DOUGLAS J BUONANNO Independent 33
CAROL HAGAN MCENTEE Democrat 33
TERESA TANZI Democrat 34
KATHLEEN A FOGARTY Democrat 35
BRUCE K WAIDLER Independent 35
BLAKE A. FILIPPI Independent 36  YES  <>
SAMUEL A AZZINARO Democrat 37
MICHAEL JAMES GEARY Independent 38
BRIAN PATRICK KENNEDY Democrat 38
JUSTIN PRICE Republican 39  YES  xx  <>
LARRY VALENCIA Democrat 39
JOSEPH D CARDILLO Democrat 40
MICHAEL W CHIPPENDALE Republican 40  YES  <>
MICHAEL J MARCELLO Democrat 41  YES
ROBERT J QUATTROCCHI Republican 41  Avoided
STEPHEN R UCCI Democrat 42
DEBORAH A FELLELA Democrat 43
KARIN N GORMAN Independent 43
GREGORY J COSTANTINO Democrat 44
MIA A ACKERMAN Democrat 45
RONALD ROSSI Republican 45
PAUL W SANTORO Independent 45
BRADLEY J COLLINS Independent 46
JOHN J CULLEN Independent 46
PAUL J DIDOMENICO Independent 46
JEREMIAH T OGRADY Democrat 46  YES
CALE P KEABLE Democrat 47
DAVID J PLACE Republican 47
BRIAN C NEWBERRY Republican 48
MICHAEL A MORIN Democrat 49
STEPHEN M CASEY Democrat 50
ROBERT D PHILLIPS Democrat 51
LISA M CANNON Republican 52
ALEX D MARSZALKOWSKI Democrat 52
STEPHANIE L WESTGATE Republican 53
THOMAS J WINFIELD Democrat 53
WILLIAM W O’BRIEN Democrat 54
ARTHUR J CORVESE Democrat 55
SHELBY MALDONADO Democrat 56
JAMES N MCLAUGHLIN Democrat 57
CARLOS EDUARDO TOBON Democrat 58
JONATHAN VALLECILLA Independent 58
LORI J BARDEN Independent 59
JEAN PHILIPPE BARROS Democrat 59
ANDREW E MAGUIRE Independent 59
DAVID A COUGHLIN JR Democrat 60
RAYMOND H JOHNSTON JR Democrat 61  Avoided
JAMES W OBENCHAIN Independent 61
MARY DUFFY MESSIER Democrat 62
CHRISTOPHER J HOLLAND Republican 63
KATHERINE S KAZARIAN Democrat 63
HELDER J CUNHA Democrat 64
GREGG AMORE Democrat 65
JOY S HEARN Democrat 66  YES
DARYL GOULD LIBERTARIAN 67  YES
JASON KNIGHT Democrat 67
WILLIAM JAMES HUNT JR LIBERTARIAN 68  YES
KENNETH A MARSHALL Democrat 68
ANTONIO F AVILA Republican 69
ANALEE A BERRETTO LIBERTARIAN 69  YES
SUSAN R DONOVAN Democrat 69
JOHN G EDWARDS Democrat 70
DENNIS M CANARIO Democrat 71
JUSTIN W LACROIX Republican 71  YES
LINDA DILL FINN Democrat 72
KENNETH J MENDONCA Republican 72
MARVIN L ABNEY Democrat 73
DEBORAH L RUGGIERO Democrat 74
REBECCA SCHIFF Republican 74
LAUREN H CARSON Democrat 75  Avoided
MICHAEL WARREN SMITH Independent 75

Senators

JEFFREY ORLANDO CAMINERO Republican 01
MARYELLEN GOODWIN Democrat 01
ANA B QUEZADA Democrat 02
GAYLE L GOLDIN Democrat 03 NO
DOMINICK J RUGGERIO Democrat 04
PAUL V JABOUR Democrat 05  <> YES
RUSSELL C HRYZAN Independent 06
HAROLD M METTS Democrat 06
FRANK A CICCONE III Democrat 07
JAMES E DOYLE II Democrat 08 YES
ADAM J SATCHELL Democrat 09 YES
WALTER S FELAG JR Democrat 10
JARROD E HAZARD Independent 10
JOHN A PAGLIARINI JR Republican 11
JAMES ARTHUR SEVENEY Democrat 11
LOUIS P DIPALMA Democrat 12
AMY E VERI Republican 12 YES
M TERESA PAIVA-WEED Democrat 13
SAV REBECCHI Independent 13
DANIEL DAPONTE Democrat 14
DONNA M NESSELBUSH Democrat 15
ELIZABETH A CROWLEY Democrat 16 Avoided
THOMAS J PAOLINO Republican 17
JINA N PETRARCA-KARAMPETSOS Democrat 17
WILLIAM J CONLEY JR Democrat 18
BILLY J CHARETTE Republican 19
RYAN W PEARSON Democrat 19 NO
ROGER A PICARD Democrat 20 Avoided
NICHOLAS D KETTLE Republican 21  <> YES
MARGAUX S MORISSEAU Democrat 21
STEPHEN R ARCHAMBAULT Democrat 22
BRENT ANDREW BARROWS Republican 22
PAUL W FOGARTY Democrat 23
STEPHEN N RAWSON Republican 23
MARC A COTE Democrat 24
FRANK LOMBARDO III Democrat 25
LOUIS VINAGRO JR Independent 25
FRANK S LOMBARDI Democrat 26  <> YES
HANNA M GALLO Democrat 27 NO
JONATHAN J KEITH Republican 27 YES
JOSHUA MILLER Democrat 28 NO
RONALD A LOPARTO Independent 29
MICHAEL J MCCAFFREY Democrat 29
JEANINE CALKIN Democrat 30
ERIN LYNCH PRATA Democrat 31
CYNTHIA ARMOUR COYNE Democrat 32 NO
JAMES A KAZOUNIS Republican 32
SCOTT R COPLEY Independent 33
LEONIDAS P RAPTAKIS Democrat 33  xx  <> YES
CATHERINE COOL RUMSEY Democrat 34
ELAINE J MORGAN Republican 34  xx  <> YES
MARK W GEE Republican 35 *
JAMES C SHEEHAN Democrat 36
SVEN P SODERBERG Independent 37 YES
V SUSAN SOSNOWSKI Democrat 37 NO
DENNIS L ALGIERE Republican 38

*J. Keith, also attended and spoke at the senate hearing for bills in 2016

To read some quotes direct from the legislators check out our Facebook page.

Not sure what district number you are?  Go to vote.sos.ri.gov and enter your info to find out.

 

RI DOH Advisory Committee Meeting

RI DOH Advisory Committee Meeting

RI Dept of Health is holding one of their two meetings they hold twice a year for the vaccine advisory committee. This committee is where it was discussed to bring the HPV vaccine into the mandated school schedule. It was also discussed in these meetings in the past to remove the religious exemption. It is a public meeting that everyone thought they could trust the Dept of Health to manage on their own. They have more then proven that someone needs to be listening, and reporting on their tactics.

RHODE ISLAND VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2016 7:30 – 8:30 AM

LOCATION:  RI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ROOM 401

If you have a way to make it to the office and attend the meeting it will be an important time to show how many have eyes on them now. We understand the time of day is difficult and not easy for many. Please share this message with others too, even if you yourself are not able to attend. One of the topics planned on being discussed at this meeting is resistance to getting vaccinated. Now is the time to express why you want the ability and right to deny a vaccine and not have it mandated to attend school, with the HPVirus you can not spread it in the classroom.

Agenda for Nov 4th meeting.

Next week is the general election, keep an eye out for an email about what candidates support our mission. If you have an email or statement from a candidate on their position please forward to changehpvmandateri@gmail.com.

Speaker of the House N Mattiello just went on record this morning stating that he does not feel any vaccine related decisions are a legislative issue and it should be only held within the RI Dept of Health. District 15 is that district and S Frias is his opposition. Though we do not know Frias position on our mission, we do know that Mattiello has the ability to make getting legislation through on the house side very difficult. We strongly encourage you to vote against Mattiello on this topic.

 

 

Public Comment Due TODAY Oct 14th

Public Comment Due TODAY Oct 14th

 

Traditionally, draconian procedures were intended for use during the outbreak of a deadly communicable disease such as small pox. The CDC, however, cites the outbreak of measles at Disneyland in 2015 as a reason why they need this authority. Remember there were about 150 cases of measles, no one died, there were a handful of hospitalizations and vaccines did not protect against the exotic strain of measles that caused the outbreak. They even cite chicken pox as a disease that could justify using these proposed powers.

The rules are written so broadly that they could be applied to anyone at anytime in the US. They apply to all international travelers, and if authorities believe you have a communicable disease and you may travel to another state they can enforce these rules. People can be held for 72 hours without access to a lawyer and failure to comply can be met with forced vaccination and other medical procedures. The new rules state “the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority.” Compliance will also be enforced with fines of $100,000 or more, and prison sentences. The broad wording and powers that are being requested leave the door wide open for even vaccines for things such as HPV being included in the future. They are already using the word epidemic at some points when talking about HPV.

The rules also seek to enlist airlines and other travel-related companies as enforcers, requesting the reporting of passengers with rashes, coughs, diarrhea and other symptoms of illness for investigation by health authorities.

The CDC provides no justification why current authority is insufficient to deal with any anticipated public health threat. These rules will have the force of law, no action by Congress or the President is necessary.

The rules and the CDC’s justification for them can be read at the link below where the public can make comments until October 14. Please make comments here.

Please click on the link below to send an email to your members of Congress asking them to oppose the rules.
     And please call your two US Senators and your Representative in the House and let them know that you want them to oppose these rules. The senator’s contact information should be below.
Sen. Jack Reed, (202) 224-4642
 
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (202) 224-2921

 



Thank you for supporting our efforts to keep fighting for you and to keep you informed.

www.NOHPVmandateRI.com
Join the online discussion too with us too.

Donate to help keep the fight strong and loud in RI www.gifts.nohpvmandateri.com