printable article

Originally published May 8 2015

California Senator Dr. Pan bribed by Big Pharma to push elimination of vaccine exemptions

by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) A California state senator and pediatrician who is lending his support for a new bill that would take away a parent's right to refuse to have their children vaccinated for any reason is backed, in part, by Big Pharma.

Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat, helped steer the legislation he co-authored through the Senate's health committee on a vote of 6-2. The measure, if passed, would remove all parental objections to vaccinations for their school-aged children.

"I've personally witnessed the suffering caused by vaccine-preventable diseases, and all children deserve to be safe at school," Pan said, as reported by Reuters.

"The personal belief exemption is now putting other school children and people in our community in danger."

But is Pan's "concern" his own? Or are other (monetary) interests at stake? Who can be sure, given his ties to Big Pharma? As reported earlier by TruthStream Media:

Predictably, but unfortunately, California's bill to force vaccinations despite religious and philosophical beliefs -- ostensibly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment -- has been introduced by a pediatrician and state senator with ties to the vaccine industry.

Dr. Pan was among more than two dozen California lawmakers who received campaign donations on record from Merck in the 2010 election cycle, ahead of supporting a 2011 law allowing girls as young as 12 years old to receive Gardasil vaccinations for HPV (manufactured by Merck) without parental consent.

Pan was a member of the state Assembly during the 2010 cycle; as documented by Health Impact News, he reportedly received $1,000 in campaign contributions from Merck.

Ties to Big Pharma

According to, which tracks campaign contributions, Pan has also received money from Genentech, a company that develops drugs "to address significant unmet medical needs" ($1,500); Tenet Healthcare, a Dallas-based corporation providing "leading healthcare services" around the country such as vaccinations ($4,100); Gilead Sciences, a "research-based biopharmaceutical company" ($1,500); mega-health care corporation Johnson & Johnson ($4,100); BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, which "develops and commercializes innovative biopharmaceuticals for serious diseases and medical conditions" ($1,000); Eli Lilly, a global Big Pharma corporation which developed a number of vaccines including the SARS vaccine and which won protection from autism lawsuits shortly after the turn of the century ($4,100); biopharmaceutical firm AmGen ($1,000); McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical distributor ($1,000); drugstore chain Rite Aid ($1,000); and others.

As to who will be forced to pay for the added vaccinations, if parents are unable, it appears that, according to Health Impact News, the burden will be shifted to California taxpayers.

"The bill says parents are not financially viable, so taxpayers will have to pay for it," Paulo Sibaja, director of legislation at the Capitol Resource Institute, told the health news site. "We're still trying to calculate the cost. But the cost will be 50 percent from the state, 50 percent from the federal government."

He added that the legislation raises additional issues, such as "who will be legally liable for medical liability, the state or the parents."

"The bill undermines the parents, who are totally out of the decision affecting their child," he said.

Bill still has a ways to go

As for Pan's anti-parental rights legislation, the bill is being proposed after 150 people in several states were diagnosed with measles in recent months; 126 were from California (the "outbreak" began at Disneyland, according to reports).

It has been called an "emergency," an "epidemic," a "crisis" -- but all told, the number of people affected was infinitesimal given the population of California alone (nearly 39 million).

Reuters noted that the measure has a long way to go before it becomes law:

The proposal, which must clear several other legislative hurdles before a possible Senate floor vote, prompted roughly four hours of heated discussion that saw several people removed for shouting down lawmakers....

Clearly, there are a number of California parents who are not ready to let their state government make this decision for them.


All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit