I am writing to you in response to the Tom Elias editorial concerning vaccinations. I am not one of those parents who feel this is good news. I happen to hold the opposite view to vaccines based on a number of issues and concerns. I am one of those parents who is not a supporter of vaccines for a number of reasons due to the extensive research I, and many others have done.
We are all well aware of the discrediting of the doctor who associated autism with vaccines and for me personally, this was not the driving issue, although my daughter did experience a significant adverse reaction immediately following a vaccine. The primary factors driving my decision to adopt a modified schedule were:
1. There is mercury in many of the vaccines, especially the non-individual vaccines that are often provided in clinics. You can independently confirm this through both the CDC website and manufactures’ websites and inserts. According to OSHA, there is zero, no amount of safe mercury exposure for adults of 170 lbs. If this is true, what effects does even trace amounts of mercury, directly injected into the blood stream have on a 7 pound developing baby? We absolutely do know that mercury negatively affects neural development.
2. Many vaccines contain an adjuvant of aluminum salts. Aluminum accumulation in the brain has been associated with Alzheimer’s. Injecting aluminum derivatives into a developing child’s blood stream can easily cross the blood/brain barrier. Since many of these vaccines are relatively recently added, we have no idea if the aluminum accumulates in the baby’s brain and will lead to Alzheimer’s development 60 years from now.
3. The outbreaks that are cited are very small and any researcher would be hard pressed to make an direct correlation between lower vaccination rates and the outbreaks.
Based on what we don’t know concerning the long term effects of these vaccinations, I don’t prefer that my children be lab rats for the drug companies. These are the same businesses who said opiate drugs have only a 1% addiction rate, which we now know is false and they knew it. In my mind their credibility is questionable. I think other parents like me would appreciate a more balanced handling of this issue, instead of making us out to be a bunch of loons who don’t care about our children and don’t care about our communities.
"The argument that up-zoning the city - which will indeed spur construction - will somehow increase access to affordable housing for families of color is a false promise. Up-zoning will increase housing opportunities for those that can afford multi-million dollar condos - regardless of their race or religion - and will leave out those families that are in the greatest need," writes Cheryl D. Rhoden, former member of Santa Monica City Council and co-founder of Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights in the latest SMa.r.t. Column. Photo: Sam Catanzaro.
“At 10,900 persons per square mile, Santa Monica is in the top 7% of all cities in California with populations over 5,000 and in the top 9% of cities over 50,000. If densification had any relation to affordability, Santa Monica would be a less costly place to live in than 90% of the other CA cities, instead of being one of the costliest in the country,” writes SMa.r.t. in their latest column. Photo: Getty
"homeless agencies appear flummoxed by the rejection rate for permanent housing they’re now able to offer, something only recently available. Did they expect a population plagued by instability and a high component (about 20 percent) of serious mental illness to turn overnight into planners interested in delayed gratification?" writes Tom Elias in his latest column. Photo: Sam Catanzaro.
“real estate appreciation is the traditional way of wealth accumulation for most American families and many of our wealthiest moguls. However, housing speculation has had a tremendously negative effect on Santa Monica's housing affordability,” writes SMa.r.t. in their latest column. Photo: Sam Catanzaro.
The north (left) and south (right) ends of Stanton MacDonald Wright’s mural in Santa Monica City Hall. Photos: Santa Monica Cultural Affairs.
“Council should have a substantive plan of how to leverage limited funds (including vacant City land) to produce the most number of permanently deed restricted affordable units. In short do no harm to the simple, credible, understandable and achievable LUCE our dedicated citizens created ten years ago,” writes SMa.r.t. in their latest column. Photo: Sam Catanzaro
“The advantage of shifting our power sources to almost all renewables is two fold: it reduces our City’s contribution to global warming by reducing the greenhouse gases vented by burning, coal, oil or gas and it also reduces the cancer and asthma among other disease caused by the air pollution spewed by the combustion of those same fuels,” writes SM.a.r.t in their latest column. Photo: Courtesy.
“Santa Monica is under ominous dark grey clouds on the horizon in which a storm is brewing, but this is not a weather forecast or about climate change, it's about shining more sunlight on our local government expenditures and what agendas and interests are behind them to best accomplish city policy, fiscal goals, and the budget,” writes SMa.r.t. in their latest column. Photo: Sam Catanzaro.
“Santa Monica’s housing allocation was nearly doubled within a single month, last October, from 4,829 units to 9,058, a number roughly equivalent in size to two Park LaBrea projects," writes SMa.r.t. in their latest column. Photo: Getty.
" All this counts for nothing as far as the state is concerned. Santa Monica has gone far beyond other cities and gets zero credit, and massive mandates as a reward."
“In the early ‘70s the City Council actually voted to tear down our iconic Pier and build an offshore island (pictured)! The populace rose up, saved our Pier and dumped the misguided Council in the subsequent election. The lesson here is that Councils do make mistakes and they need to be corrected by the people,” writes Mario Fonda-Bonardi. Photo: +D Architecture and Design Museum.
"After 20 years, Santa Monica students would have $7,150 less per student than had we remained a combined district," writes Superintendent Ben Drati on a potential split between Santa Monica and Malibu's combined school district. Photo: Sam Catanzaro.
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest news and events in Santa Monica and the surrounding areas!
John Jalili to serve as Interim City Manager By Sam Catanzaro John Jalili will serve as Santa Monica’s Interim City...Read more