Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: No, I got an email.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Okay, welcome,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: folks, to this afternoon's session of the House Human Services Committee. We are wrapping up testimony on H-five 45 this afternoon, And we do have a new version of the bill on your website. And we also have a combination of different things. We have testimony from people who will be here in person. We also have testimony from people who have submitted written testimony. And so please do look not only at today, but also at last week's, you know, daily dates anytime you see an h 05:45. You can also, if you call it up under the bill and look under

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: documents and what you see,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: see it that way as well, all in one spot. So we are going to start off with the Office of Professional Regulation at the Secretary of State's office. And Jennifer, welcome. Hello. Good afternoon.

[Speaker 0]: May I pull up another chair? Absolutely.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: We have a couple of folding chairs right there besides the refrigerator. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: while you're doing that, we'll do introductions around the room. And I will start. My name's Theresa Wood, and I live in Waterbury, I also serve both in Bealsboro and Huntington. I'm Amay Garofano, I live in Essex, and I also represent Essex.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: I'm Jubilee McGill, and I represent Ruthport, Middlebury, New Haven, Weybridge.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Esme Cole represent Hartford.

[Speaker 0]: Hi, I'm Zon Eastes. I live in Guildford, and I also represent Vernon. I represent Neil Huckerman. I represent Brandon Thomson. I'm a representative from Colchester. Hi, good afternoon. Afternoon, I'm Dan Noyes, I represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson and Belvidere.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then we'll start right

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: over here and go right around the outside. Great. Michelle White, Nurse Practitioners Association.

[Speaker 0]: Bridgette Monarch with Monarch Strategy on behalf of Blue Cross

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Blue Shield. Amy Hornblast, Director of Vermont Standing Up.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And Nancy, why don't you go ahead since we're doing introductions?

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Nancy Hoag, I'm the pharmacy director for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. And our witnesses. Oh, and Laurie,

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: I'm sorry, forgot. Sorry, most of my assistants. Great,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And I'm Jennifer Cohen. I'm the director of the Office of Professional Regulation. And with me?

[Emily Carr (General Counsel, Office of Professional Regulation)]: I'm Emily Carr. I'm the general counsel for OPR.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Great. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: so much for having us today. We appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding H-five 45. This is an important bill that's going to increase health care for Vermonters and OPR supports this bill. We understand, oh, and there is the Deputy Secretary of State, Lauren Bird.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: so much for coming, Lauren. So we understand that you're considering including an APRN and or a pharmacist on the Vermont Immunization Advisory Council in this bill. We support that change. As you know, APRNs provide primary care to a significant number of Vermonters, and pharmacists provide substantial immunization care within Vermont. So we have some recommended language to be added to H-five 45 to section eleven thirty one B, which is the section about membership on the advisory council. And we're supporting a added language, a practicing advanced practice registered nurse license pursuant to 26 VSA Chapter 28 appointed by the governor and a practicing pharmacist license pursuant to 26 VSA Chapter 36 appointed by the governor. OKR has had a strong partnership with the Vermont Department of Health. During the COVID-nineteen pandemic, OKR and VDH collaborated extensively to ensure that Vermonters were able to access immunizations through their primary health care provider as well as regulated pharmacy professionals. We continued that collaborative work, including on H-five 45, as well as changes to the pharmacy statutes in Title 26. We understand that there is a possibility of an amendment to this bill that would include modifying 26 BSA Chapter 36, the pharmacy licensing statute. OPR supports this amendment, which would enable pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to provide immunizations that are recommended by the Commissioner of Health.

[Emily Carr (General Counsel, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Vaccines are prescription drugs. When you go into a pharmacy and request a vaccine, it can only be provided if your health care provider has prescribed it, the pharmacist prescribes the vaccine for you pursuant to the state pharmacist prescribing protocol, which is laid out in the statute, or the commissioner of the Department of Health has issued a standing order allowing the specific vaccine to be administered to you. Currently, that's only the COVID-ten screening order. Under current law, pharmacists can prescribe and pharmacists and pharmacy technicians can administer only vaccines that are recommended by the CDC's Advisory Council on Immunization Practices or ACIP. If ACIP says a vaccine should be based on shared decision making between a patient and their doctor, then it is not ACIP recommended. When pharmacy immunization protocols were established, ACIP was the consistent national recognized authority providing evidence based vaccine recommendations. However, this is no longer true. Earlier this year, ACIP stopped recommending any vaccines for COVID to anyone under the age of 65, including pregnant people. And also measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella for anyone. This had an immediate impact on Vermont. For COVID, OPR and VDH were able to mitigate this impact by updating the standing COVID vaccine protocol to remove all ACIP references. We do not have that solution for other vaccines generally because the underlying statute is tied to ACIP. Because the current Vermont pharmacy law is tied to ACIP recommendations, This interferes with pharmacies and pharmacy technicians ability to provide COVID immunizations. The proposed amendment to H545 would solve this problem by removing references to ACIP from our pharmacy licensing statutes. And instead, pharmacists would be able to prescribe and pharmacists and pharmacy technicians could administer any vaccine to patients over 18 that are approved by the Commissioner of Health as part of state protocols, as well as the COVID flu vaccine to patients over five. This is essentially what they were doing before ACIP's recommendation changed, and it worked well. The new legislation allows the Commissioner to recommend immunizations based on those of both ACIP and other nationally recognized non ACIP health authorities. We've included the amended language in the 2026 OPR bill, which is H588, and it's attached to our testimony this afternoon. And we have no objections to moving this important language into H545. OPR wholeheartedly supports passing the amendment language in any form. We would look to the legislative council's advice on whether the language should be contained in both bills as it moves through the process.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Thank you. Thank you. Questions from committee members.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have question back in Jennifer's part of the testimony about the recommendation for the APRN and the pharmacist. And so I don't see anybody from the health department here. So one of the things that they expressed concern about was that expanding the number of health care professionals by specific name was then going to result in additional health professionals by name to ask to be included. And so they preferred the language that's in draft 2.1, which is the addition of an additional health care professional not already represented. So I'm just curious about your thoughts about that.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: I think APRNs and pharmacists are so vital to immunizations practices in the state of Vermont that it really does make sense to have a dedicated seat on the council. There may be other health professionals whose practices are kind of tangentially related to immunizations, but for pharmacy professionals and APRNs, it's really a large part of their practice and what they do. So I think our preference would be to have dedicated seats to those folks. That would be our position.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Okay, thank you.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And we did reach out. I watched the testimony from Friday and I did reach out to VDH and just let them know that we were going to be making this suggestion. So I assume we have such a great working relationship with them that I assume we'll connect with them more on that. I mean, I think it is important committee members to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: recognize it specifically calls out a pediatrician, a practicing pediatrician, two individuals who are professors, researchers, or physicians, and specifically calls out a family or internal medicine physician.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: As well as a member of the Board of Medical Practice. So there's a lot of physician seats on that council.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I hear the message. Okay. Other questions from committee members? And we'll ask Katie what she thinks. And feel free to be in contact with her as well about whether it should continue to flow in both if for some reason one doesn't seem to move along or whatever. We were concerned because this one, the effective date is being changed to upon passage, and the other one is not likely to pass till much later in the session. And so we didn't want there to be sort of this void in between for pharmacists in particular. We're happy to have it in both bills.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions? Just because

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know. Roxanne Eastes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. From a technical point of view, it's possible to have identical language in two bills going forward?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, it is. And then if this one moves along and it reaches the governor's desk and is signed, if it makes it all the way through the process, and then either in the house or the senate, wherever the OPR bill lands, wherever it is at that moment, they would take it out.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Oh, I see. So that's a process that's built in that you would never get passed. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They call it belts and suspenders in the building. So we wanted to include it here just for that very reason I just said about effective dates. Any other questions? Thank you both for being here. Appreciate it.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Thank you for dropping in Lauren. Appreciate that as well. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, thank you all. Would you like to speak? No, should speak to connect with you really quickly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: All right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you

[Speaker 0]: so much.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Okay, thank

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: you so much. Is Sebastian joining us via Zoom? Okay. So Nancy, you're going to get to go next.

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Thank you very much. Well, I'm sorry I can't be in the room with you, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you from Zoom today. My name is Nancy Hogue. I'm a pharmacist and I am the pharmacy director for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont. I've been in this role with Blue Cross for about four years. And prior to that, I served as the pharmacy director for Vermont Medicaid for twelve years. So I've been involved in the VVPP program, the vaccine purchasing program for at least fifteen or sixteen years now, or as in my various roles, my two different roles. So I have been a member of the Purchasing Committee, I'm sorry, the Immunization Fundering Advisory Committee as a payer representative, again, in both of those roles and have always had a very collaborative relationship with the Department of Health in that role as well. Blue Cross is very supportive of H-five 45. I think it's a bill that we really need at this difficult time for, you know, based on a lot of other prior testimony, I don't think I need to go into detail on that. So we do support the policy objectives of the bill, and we're certainly aligned with providing all of the recommended immunizations to our members and doing that at zero cost share. We do cover all of these vaccines today that are on the federal vaccine schedule, and we cover them all at zero cost share. And we certainly plan to do that going forward. There really are just a couple of comments that I wanted to make on the bill. We just would like to assure, nobody's really sure what's happening in the future with the CDC. And I think Department of Health also testified to this last week that we're uncertain that we will be able to continue to purchase vaccines through the CDC based on these various schedule changes. And so the bill is importantly talking about having an alternative source of these vaccines. And we would just like to be sure that if we are forced to go that route because the CDC is not, you know, we're not able to do it through the CDC, that the cost of those vaccines is not more than what we otherwise pay for privately purchased vaccines. So we basically don't want our costs to go up. Our hope is that they will stay the same or go down. And that's certainly what we are hoping based on what the plan is, what the department of health plan is for purchasing these vaccines. So we have some concern about the costs going up for us beyond what we currently pay for those vaccines that we are privately purchased and reimbursed by the health plan. Thank you. Oops. Yep, feel free to interrupt me.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I didn't. I thought I didn't mean to interrupt. I thought you were pausing. So go ahead.

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Yep, I just have two other small points. One is I wanted to echo what some other testimony has provided around the language. And honestly, I'm not sure if this language changed in the latest 2.1 because I haven't had time to see that version. But the language around individuals domiciled in the state, this may unintentionally exclude some Blue Cross members who live in border states and utilize Vermont providers. So we wouldn't want to have that unintended consequence with that language. So would appreciate, you know, having access for all of our members to the program.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, that language has been changed, Nancy. Okay, thank think you'll see that in the new draft.

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Okay, that's great. And then the last comment I wanna make is for the Vermont Immunization Advisory Council, and this may already be part of a state board rule. I'm not really sure, but my comment is that conflicts of interest should be disclosed and avoided if possible on that committee. And just to give you like sort of an example, it allows for say a researcher to be appointed to the board. If that researcher was being funded by pharma and they were doing vaccine research funded by one of the vaccine companies, I think it's important for that to be disclosed and just to avoid any conflicts of interest. And as I said, that may already be a provision for all state boards, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wanted to just mention that. I think that's a good question. And to be honest, I don't know the answer to that in terms of requirement for all state boards about whether there's a code ethics, of ethics. I know as legislators, we have to sign code of ethics. And I know in other places, they do. It's a good question. We're gonna have to look into that one. But I think that's a good point for us to think about and consider as we continue with markup on the bill.

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Thank you. And really, that's the end of my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. One of the things that you brought up in your comments between the differences between a Vermont vaccine schedule and a federal vaccine schedule or recommendations is something that we actually brought up with the health department in terms of public information about all of this actually is necessary. Definitely we saw and we heard testimony around the confusion that happened with the COVID-nineteen schedule in the fall when Vermont issued its own recommendation and making sure that health care professionals understand what the differences are between the two recommendations. And just so they know what's being done and understand that their patients, it's still within patient choice about what they received, but that patients know that if they choose the Vermont recommendations, that the costs will still be covered. If they choose the federal recommendation, that will still be covered. So I think that's important in terms of information out. And we did receive confirmation from the health department that that's really one of the things that they're most concerned about. The other thing, though, I guess I have to say that I don't think I can guarantee you that you're going to have the same or lower cost. It could be totally possible. I don't know. But one of the things, and I guess I'm interested in your perspective about this, that we have testimony, we've heard testimony, and I think we also have testimony from MVP that says this, that actually vaccines actually save money from an insurer perspective in terms of needing to reduce the cost for the diseases that may result if people acquire the disease without having been vaccinated. So I just want to be clear that I can't guarantee that you're going to have the same or lower costs. I can guarantee that the health department is going to do their best to acquire it at the lowest possible cost. And we we had some discussion of wanting to make sure that it was not compromising quality at the same time as just cost isn't the only denominator, I guess, the point.

[Speaker 0]: So

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: I just want to be clear about that. We're not going to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be able to put in writing and law that says this is going to be at the same or lower because we don't control that here.

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Yeah, I understand that. And I wasn't saying like lower than the CDC schedule. We do pay for a number of vaccines outside of the program. So it was, you know, we would like not to see our overall costs on vaccines to go up. But yeah, I understand what you're saying. You can't guarantee how

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: a

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: contract is gonna turn out.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or what the market is gonna bear or what pharmaceutical companies charge or any of that kind of stuff, frankly. Okay, any other questions for Nancy at this time? Thank you so much, Nancy. Appreciate you being here this afternoon. Members, from the insurer perspective, I would encourage you to read the MVP written testimony that they provided that is on our website. So we're Thank you. We are still waiting for Sebastian. No? No. Oh, okay. I didn't know what you look like, Sebastian. Okay, welcome. Thank you for being here.

[Sebastian Erduanga (Department of Financial Regulation)]: Thank you for having me. For the record, I'm Sebastian Erduanga from the Department of Financial Regulation. I think this is the first time I've been in this space, so it's good to meet all of you. I am testifying on draft 2.1 of H545, which is the newest copy I have seen. So in general, the Department of Financial Regulation strongly supports the bill, and we're supportive of the changes made with respect to commercial insurance coverage of vaccines, which is at the bottom sorry, the top of page 11 and going through page 10, we believe that the changes will allow Vermonters to continue to receive vaccines that are supported by scientific evidence with no member posturing. And at this time, I'm prepared to take any questions the committee has about the role of the department or the portions of this bill that implicate commercial health insurance coverage.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for being here. And thank you for listening in to testimony the other day. Appreciate it. So any questions for this witness? We don't often get DFR. We're like, oh, what do we ask DFR?

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Especially when they agree with the bill.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So well, I'll just take the opportunity to ask a question about what kind of oversight and accountability actions does DFR take to assure that, so for instance, in this case, that vaccines are at no cost to the individual? Is it based on complaints, if you got a complaint from somebody, or not?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, so

[Sebastian Erduanga (Department of Financial Regulation)]: in general, the department has two mechanisms for oversight of health insurance companies. One is through the consumer complaint process. So several of you might be aware of an action that the department took back in 2023 to secure compensation for women who had been charged cost sharing for contraceptive services. That was brought to the department's attention through a complaint. The other way that we enforce the law is through examinations. So not just with health insurers, but with other lines of insurance too, we regularly examine the companies that are subject to our jurisdiction and go through their claims to ensure that they're complying with all relevant Vermont statutes and regulations.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Sebastian?

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Thank you so much for making

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: your way over here. Appreciate that. Going to

[Sebastian Erduanga (Department of Financial Regulation)]: head over to the next door again.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's great. So I'm going to take just a moment. Amy? Yes. I'm just wondering, we have a little bit of time, and this is premier of the day. Would you like to present your testimony to the committee?

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: That would be fantastic. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Hello.

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: Thank you so much. My name is Amy Hornblast. I am director of Vermont Stands Up. We are representing people of Vermont. We started to come together during COVID, during the lockdowns, people who wanted to have human connection and not stay six feet apart. We were totally confused by this adherence to science, which we were not finding in the research ourselves. And so we found each other and an organization grew out of that. I became director last year. And I'm here to testify on House Bill five forty five regarding the vaccine. What's it titled again? Basically reinstating the vaccine vaccination Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes, I'm here to testify on that. I am a licensed health educator, grades pre K through 12. And I've been teaching for ten years in the St. Johnsbury School District in 2020, when they wanted us well, first of all, they locked down the school and sent the kids home. And we were meeting by Zoom. And I could spend a whole time testifying about that and how hard that was and how many students we lost touch with. And when they wanted us to come back in the fall and put masks on the kids and on my fellow teachers, they wanted me to enforce these mask requirements. I just could not do that. I had never heard of masking people, especially children, in all of my years of health care. I have worked in human services. I have worked with people with developmental disabilities. I have worked with severely immunocompromised children when they were first integrated in the schools in the '80s. And I have worked with survivors of sexual and domestic violence. So for all of those reasons, I just knew that there was something wrong with putting face masks on people. And then I had to resign for my position as a health educator. My school board and my fellow my director, my principal, told me it was a political conversation that we could not have in an emergency situation. And I said, No, it's not political. It's respiration. We're talking about breathing. We're talking about germs. I teach handwashing. I can tell you that these germ factories on kids' faces is not going to be a good thing in a school. We already struggle with all of that. And so they didn't want to hear from me. So I resigned from my position. I conducted a statewide study called the Vermont Mask Survey. And I surveyed Vermonters on the harms that they were experiencing as a result of wearing masks, particularly in workplace settings where they were forced to work. Mean, the minute you stand up, you suddenly need 10% more oxygen just by standing, let alone any exercise or movement, lifting, carrying boxes, checkout clerks. And I've been asking them all during the lockdown, how are you faring under that mask? And they were not faring well at all. However, they were not allowed to resign and collect unemployment like some other folks. They had to keep their jobs. So I conducted this mask survey, surveyed Vermonters, found exactly the same harms that the Vermont Department of Health found when they surveyed Vermonters. However, they were only focused on compliance. A lot of the mask research is only focused on compliance. Are people following the rules? Are they masking? And in some cases, in health care settings in Vermont, even to this day, and this policy was preexisting to COVID as well, we have something called a vaccine or mask policy. A vaccine or mask policy tells employees that if you don't get your annual flu vaccine, you have to wear a mask. A paper blue mask, an N95, they don't care, slap something on your face. And I do cite a court case in my research from up in Canada where they found that that was coercion, because there is no evidence that these masks will protect others. We could go on and on about the lack of evidence on masks, even in health care settings, even for surgeons, even in sterile environments where they are pumping extra oxygen into the room. Even in those cases, surgeons make more mistakes. They are more likely to transmit infections because of the lack of hygiene of a mask. You're going to touch it, and it's going to be wet and moist from your breath. And that building up carbon dioxide underneath the mask reaches toxic levels within just a few moments of wearing a mask, especially if you stand up. If you sit down, it doesn't necessarily. It stays in not healthy levels, but not off the charts. And unfortunately, a lot of the people making these mask mandate decisions were sitting all day if they were wearing masks at all. And so I think there's a big difference there. And so the reason why I'm coming in to speak to this specific bill, we do have a mask bill that we are working on next door in the Health Care Committee that would prohibit mask requirements in schools. But the reason why I'm coming to talk to you today is because I have been bringing my research and the concerns of fellow Vermonters to the Vermont Department of Health for five and a half years. I'm just thank you so much, Chair Wood, for speaking with me and being willing to hear my testimony. This is the first time a public body in Vermont has responded to my request. So I'm very concerned. My experience is not with vaccines. I do not have an extensive background, but I am a research based health educator. I have an EMT license right now. And I've read all through that EMT book, and I've read all these studies that people are talking about. I have looked for the research that they say proves that vaccines work and are safe, and I can't find it. We have not been allowed to have a coming to the table. We talk about believing in math and the science. Trust the science. It's there. Just trust these experts. But it's not there. And so if we could just come to the table, maybe you have it, maybe it's, you know, maybe it's like those missing WMDs, you know, maybe it's under the table and maybe I just haven't found it yet. And maybe other researchers like at the Department of Health and Human Services have not found it yet. But why can't anyone show it to us? We have never done a double blind placebo study on vaccines for children. And we also have not done any long term studies. This hepatitis B vaccine that you guys are looking at, I believe, you know, that is the main one that people are talking about right now that brought this kind of to the forefront. I believe they looked at the effects on children for five days after getting the vaccine on babies. So we don't have the long term studies. We do know that the ingredients in these vaccines can cause brain damage. I mean, this I know because I've read the science. So my concern is that we have a health department that was willing for two years to tell the schools and guide the schools to mask children with no scientific evidence that masks were safe. I do believe, personally, that those masks in schools were used as coercion once again because the schools were told and the children were told coming back to school that second year of masking in 2021 that they could remove their masks if the school reached an eighty percent or higher vaccination rate. So teachers pressured students. Students pressured other students. Get your vaccine. Get your vaccine. We need to take these masks off. They are incredibly uncomfortable to wear. We had testimony at school board meetings across the state. I cite all of this on my personal website, amyvt.com. You can watch testimony from parents saying my child is crying every day. They don't want to go to school. They're getting headaches. Their faces are breaking out. In my school district, I did an information request, and I found that one student ended up in the emergency room within two weeks of the mask mandate and that teachers were quitting. You have health care providers who have been quitting because they could not tolerate these masks. My concern is that we are going to hand more power and control without a due process, without citizens at the table, to a department that is willing to do this, right? To say, test the kids, put things up their noses every two weeks or every week in order to let them stay in school with no evidence that those were safe or effective. Stay six feet apart. Remember that? The whole first year of school, the schools could only meet at half capacity. Half the student If you understand what chaos that caused in children and family lives, I mean, you can find on school board videos of those school board meetings, even school board members at my own school district in St. Jay were crying, like, basically in tears. Like, this is wrecking our family. And we are well financed. We have all the toys and things at home to keep our kids entertained. And our family is cracking apart under this pressure. Please, something has to give here. And what was the reason for it? There was no science behind any of that. And if you look at the Vermont Department of Health website now, you will see that they are no longer suggesting masks, vaccines, or distancing. However, I also was looking up their latest vaccination rates in the schools. And don't quote me. You can find the links all in my letter that I've submitted. But I believe it was about ten percent of students are vaccinated for the flu right now, and only less than a third are vaccinated, I'm sorry, less than ten percent ten percent are vaccinated for COVID, and about a third are vaccinated for the flu or less. And yet flu rates have dropped since we stopped these mandates. I also submitted, you'll find an attachment that I submitted to Laurie. I created a chart, and I've seen charts that other Vermonters are creating and sending to me as director of Vermont Stands Up that show exactly the same thing Since the Vermont Department of Health implemented all of these COVID interventions, including the vaccine in 2021, our death rate rose by about sixteen percent a year. And now it's down to, I believe, ten percent increase. This is off the charts. If you can find insurance companies across the country are meeting over this over the past three years talking about this. Why are our death rates going up? This is not insubstantial. And when I did get to ask doctor Lamoille about it on a radio show, and I linked to this, you can hear his response, you know, this is just too small to count. A thousand Vermonters a year I mean, a thousand Vermonters, you know, excess deaths are, you know, too small to count. And my argument is we shut down Vermont based on one COVID death. So I don't believe it's too small to count. So thank you so much. I don't know if I've run over the five minutes that you snuck me in for. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you have, and I really it.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you, Amy.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Appreciate it. So why don't you

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: stay there in case people have questions?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So questions for this witness. I have a couple, Amy. I appreciate the time and energy that you've spent in thinking about mask mandates in particular and the impact. I think all of us were impacted at one level or another, whether it was us personally or people we knew or people in our communities. And I guess one of the things that I am sort of coming back to as it specifically relates to this bill is your, I wanna make sure I'm understanding what the final summary element was, is that the feeling that the health department not be the, I guess, purveyor of recommendations on vaccines. Did I overstate that or is that, could you maybe summarize a little bit?

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: Yes, I'm sorry, thank you for reminding me. I missed my main point because you sort

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of caught me a little bit off guard.

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: I realized that. You weren't expecting to sit there. My main point

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is I feel like we are at

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: a huge moment of common ground right now. Because now people are saying they don't trust the CDC, and they don't want the government imposing their version of science on us. Well, many of us were saying that five years, six years ago, right? We were saying exactly the same thing. So we have common ground. Can we just agree that the Department of Health can make all the recommendations they want to? Their process, I would love to improve and we're in public input and all of that. But they can make all the recommendations they want. We really need to be careful, though, about people's autonomy, their right to make their own personal health choices. And you guys do have a bill. I don't see it on the wall here, but it is Bill 61, I believe. Was in this room. Oh, six No. Well, there's 69, but House Bill 61 about bodily autonomy and being able to make your own health choices. Maybe it was passed to health care.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure where it is, yeah.

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: But it was here last year. And so I really want to make sure that as you think all this through, that you are really remembering that we all should have the right to question the science, to review the science, to make our own personal health care decisions. So that's really the main point.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. And to be clear that this bill doesn't require anybody to do anything. It is only about recommendations. And so I appreciate you being clear about what that main kernel of point that you wanted to make.

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: And just one other really important kernel point is that as I go through all of this, I'm realizing the main problem is people are not allowed to hear about the harms, the harms of masking. You have never been told that the carbon dioxide under that mask is reaching dangerous levels. Please be careful. Please watch your family members, your loved ones. Senior citizens and well, not only senior citizens, but residents of nursing homes were made to mask, right, for about a year. But guess what? They took the masks off the residents. Why? They were having strokes and nobody knew it under those masks. So whenever we do a medical intervention, we have unintended consequences. No one is sharing the arms of masks. And as far as I'm aware, when you hear an ad on the radio promoting the use of vaccines because the health department is promoting it or a pharmacy is promoting it, you don't get that list of adverse side effects the way you do for any other medication that you hear on TV. Now, I'm not sure I'm going to be talking with Aaron Siri, who's a lawyer who deals with this tomorrow through a Zoom call. I want to find out what's the whole why is this why are vaccines and face masks and other things like this falling in this hole? My whole trouble this whole time in the past five, six years has been getting the message out that there are harms. And for some reason, the department of health, the mainstream media, public officials, school board, nobody was willing to let that be known. So I would like to make sure. I don't feel like your bill is really

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: addressing Yeah, we're not really touching that. But you raised an interesting point. I'm just trying to remember. I did get a flu vaccine and I'm glad that I got one. But I'm trying to remember if I was ever given, like when you get a prescription filled, get the side effects or potential side effects of the medication that you're taking. And I'm trying to remember if I ever got one when I got a flu vaccine. Yeah, I probably did. So yeah,

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: I can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sign it. Yeah. Yeah.

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: Like a cheat sheet, but not the full box insert, which includes all of the research, what they based it on and all the potential harms that they found. Yeah. But thank you so Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Really appreciate it. Thank you for I wanted to have an opportunity since you were here and it was within your timeframe that we had

[Amy Hornblast (Director, Vermont Stands Up)]: a few minutes to spare. I appreciate it. You made my day. Absolutely.

[Speaker 0]: You. Good job.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's make, I just, some things here were presented as facts. And I just wanna say that these are Yeah, I think that it's important for people to read Okay. The so we have our next witness at 02:15.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Need to go now or later, whatever's best for you. Now it's good. You're ready. Guys are okay. We're ahead

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of schedule a little bit, so it's all good. I know

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: sometimes that happens when I presented before. I'm okay to sit. Absolutely. All right. So, thank you

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: so much. Yes, Alison Descathie. I'm a Danville, Vermont resident. Thank you for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: pronouncing your last name. Know nobody knows.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce it. I used to be a Walsh.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would never have to spell my name or pronounce it.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: So if

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you would, I wouldn't have to do that. Saying all the time. I had

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: to always double check that.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: So thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it. Just my background real quick. I have a Master's of Science in Clinical Human Nutrition. I've had a practice in the Northeast Kingdom for twenty five years. I also teach at the Vermont State Colleges. I've taught for twenty five years there. I teach science, I teach bio, nutrition, wellness for life. So very much in the sort of health realm. And in my practice, as you can imagine, as is the case and is coming up, we all have very different opinions on health and what works for us or doesn't work for us. And what I've certainly learned in my practice and teaching is health is so personal. It's incredibly personal. We're all so different and really just trying to respect that piece. In my practice, I do work with 200 people who have been vaccine injured or harmed. So this is just sort of going off of what Amy said, very important that I think we realize that vaccine injury is very real. And we have to keep in mind when we're always looking at data and hearing these numbers that that data point is a person, and they were either injured permanently, temporarily, or possibly died. So just the reality around that piece. And I was gonna also ask Lori, I'm not sure. I did send in a PowerPoint to put up, I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not sure. Do you have a device?

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: I could open my device if that helps, but I don't wanna cut into my time. But I did send it to you.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: I did open it to

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: your computer.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, have. You guys have it.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Oh, okay. Well, it's supposed to Oh, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is it Okay. Post it. I just was Oh, we just

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: got it in there. Okay.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Okay. So sorry. I'll just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: try to. That's okay. So we have it here and you can follow along on yours and we can follow along with you. Perfect. Okay. That sounds good. Yeah. If you look at your devices and refresh if you need to.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: So just let me know if everybody has it before I sort of plunge in here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Everybody, got it. Are they both pulled up? Okay.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: All right. I guess we're great. Okay. And the other thing that I should mention too, and I'll get to this piece a little bit later is, I'm also one of the co directors for HealthChoice Vermont, and we represent 500 Vermonters who are very committed to informed consent, body autonomy, and ensuring that we always have the ability to make our own private personal health decisions in the state and in our lives. So you can see the first or the second slide really. I just wanted to bring this up because to me, this drives home the point of vaccine injury is real. And this is a girl, Caitlin Matten, who lived in Barton, Vermont. She died of myocarditis from a flu zone vaccine in 2011 at age seven. She received the vaccine four days prior to dying. It took them more than ten years, but through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which is designed specifically to deal with vaccine injury harm and death, they did receive the highest compensation, which how can you ever obviously compensate for the loss of a child, but they did get a quarter of $1,000,000. The full testimony is linked there. The only reason I have her picture in there is because she presented testimony in 2015 and included all of this information. And then the next one, I just pulled out some quotes, because again, I just want to go back to the fact that this is really about you know, real people. And her mother, Nicole, who testified said, as you guys can see, I was not told that vaccines can cause injuries or death. I was only told the shot would keep her healthy, but that was not the case. Pediatricians are denying that these things happen, and if you ask me, doctors need to be better educated on adverse reactions of vaccines. They should also have to accept liability if the shot they give causes harm, like it did for Kailyn. They would give better information if they had to be responsible for the recommendations. Any and all vaccines should be subject to informed consent and full disclosure and exemptions. The right to say no should always be available since there is risk. And please stop me at any point, or if I talk fast, please stop me. This number here, can see on the fourth slide, dollars 5,000,000,005 and $30,623,153.83 That is the amount of money at this time that has been paid out to people who have been injured, harmed or lost loved ones since 1988.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That was the, you said it was okay to ask you a question?

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Yes, and everything's linked too, yes. I see the links and thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you for the active links. That's very helpful to be able to go back and see more info. How is that program? I was just about

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: to get Oh, it is a fund, so it actually is paid for pharma. Some people back and say, Oh, taxpayers are paying for that. But I'm just about to dive into it. So if I don't answer your question, just let me know. Thank you. Yes, no problem. So the fifth slide, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, federal program created in 1988 to compensate those who've been injured or killed by certain vaccines. The Health Resources and Services Administration, called CRRSA, is the agency that administers the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It was established in 1988 after the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986. Incredibly controversial. I think it's critical for you all in this committee to keep this in mind moving forward. In 1986, President Reagan signed this act in, and what it did, which has never ever happened and still to this day has never happened to any other industry, is that no person, you can see this on the seventh slide, can bring a civil action for damages against the vaccine administrator or manufacturer for damages arising from a vaccine related injury or death associated with the vaccine, meaning you cannot sue big pharma. Big pharma is no longer responsible. I hate to say that, but we all know big pharma and the opioid crisis. They are literally convicted criminals. Experimentation on children and people in the global South, Obviously, they've paid billion dollars in fines. They have a track record. They have a rap sheet. So now we have protected them from any liability. And instead, if somebody is injured, harmed or killed from a vaccine, they sue Health and Human Services. And Health and Human Services has the largest law firm protecting them in this case, which would be the Department of Justice. So that's who you're going after if there's any damage. So the reason this happened, I just wanted to just step back for one second here. Number eight, why did this happen? Why would they have offered a complete liability shield to pharmaceutical industries? No other product has this liability shield. That's sort of what drives market forces. If you make a car, if you make a car seat, if you make a product, you're responsible for the safety of it, doing the best job you can. So you can see in 1985, there was a US Senate committee convened to deal with the lawsuits brought by parents. There was a DPT, Diphtheria Pertussis Tetanus vaccine that was causing brain injury and death. They found out that it was because it was a live pertussis vaccine, it was not acellular at that point, and it was causing neurological damage. So the vaccine manufacturers were folding. They were getting sued. I have the numbers there. Tons of lawsuits filed. There was only one vaccine manufacturer left at the time.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: It was called

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Ladural. That turned into Wyeth, which then Pfizer bought, I think, in 2009. But I feel this history is important so you guys can sort of see where we're now landing in the place that we are. So that was why this had passed. And essentially what happened because of that is Americans lost their constitutionally protected right to trial by jury for vaccine damage or death. As I said, no other product is granted this immunity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are there any efforts that you know of at the federal level to try to reverse that? Yes, there

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: are bills on the federal level and even states who are saying, if you're going to, for example, there's many states saying, if you're going to advertise your vaccine products, then you are assuming liability in this state. But right now states, and this has been going on really since it passed, since it went into effect in 1988, where they've been trying to say, this isn't acceptable, this isn't okay, because now you can look and see, this is my next two slides, what's happened because of that. Pfizer, for example, most profitable drugs 2019, they are responsible for the safety of these products. I'm sure you guys all recognize Lipitor and Lyrica. I mean, see them advertised. They've all had a placebo controlled double blind study, which is the gold standard. And it's, as you can see here, two years to seven and a half years that that went on. Vaccines on the other hand, and again, this is all documented and linked, and I know that it's actually mind blowing. It really is criminals, in

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: my

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: opinion. You can see the next slide. Hepatitis B by Merck. The polio virus, Hib, DTaP, Prevnar. None of them have had a control or if a control was used, it was another vaccine. You can see the length of days that have been used for follow-up. For example, Hep B, there's only been five days of safety review and follow-up for preclinical licensure. There's a lawsuit. This is why we're now kind of landing in the situation we are right now with the hepatitis B. There's been a lawsuit since 2020 because of the fact that there's been, well, I'll show you the timeline I put together. There's been foyer requests and letters sent to the FDA requesting where is the safety data on the hepatitis B vaccine. They got a document that was twelve ninety four pages from the FDA that confirmed they've only done five days of safety trial study prior to licensing this. Which one is against the law, but two, I think anyone can look and say that's not a robust good study. So this is what the 1986 National Vaccine Childhood Injury Act has resulted in, is really pharmaceutical companies saying, why would we put money into safety testing when we're not responsible for the safety of this product? And that's a real problem. And I will say this has been going on for decades. And I think since COVID, people have sort of opened up a little bit to the conversation of the trust factor and why is there a big anti vax movement? Why are people questioning this? So just to point these pieces out. And I just wanted to go through a little history, because then I think it might help you understand more of where HealthChoice Vermont, as well as myself, have some recommendations for the bill that might be considered.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Can I ask a question? So on the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: list of the vaccines and then the number of days in the control, so are those things that I guess what I'm trying to understand is these things are updated on a periodic basis. So I mean, the vaccines change as So I was just trying

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: to figure out

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: how dated is this information and what's the source of the data?

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: This is all active right now. All of these vaccines are active. These are just five examples. But like hepatitis B, that one by Merck is Recumbivax HB. And that one has only been studied for five days, preclinical licensure. But then I'll get to, there's definitely surveillance systems in place to try to catch, is there some damage that's happening? What is the harm caused by this? So this is where we get into this gray area of these have been allowed for licensure for five days, there's no long term follow-up that's happening to understand what are the long term effects. And I do have something a little bit later and I'll just plug in, but Duke University along with the FDA years ago, I'm sorry, think it was maybe around 2013, they had done a study and they said for pediatric medication, you should be doing studies at least six years because it's very hard to understand for a child if you're talking about neurological or autoimmune conditions that may not come out for several years. So this is sort of one of the crux of the issues where you can see why were these licensed to begin with. And then the next slide, and this is slide 12. This basically gets to, and again, this is, I know, shocking and might be tough to hear, but this is all on the package inserts. None of the vaccine doses that the CDC currently recommends for Rutinin injection were licensed by the FDA based on long term placebo controlled trials. Every single one of them has been either compared to another vaccine in the trial or to a solution that has an adjuvant in it, as formaldehyde or aluminum or mercury. So it's not been an inert placebo that these have been compared to. And the other thing that's not been studied, which is down on this slide 12, is the fact that the overall childhood immunization program schedule has not been studied to see impacts on a child. Because I don't know if you guys know how many there are right now, but this is my next slide. This is kind of shocking. And I will say, this is where The US is an outlier. We have more than almost twice as many vaccines than any other country. And there wasn't just one peer country, it seemed like that came out in the first thing. There wasn't just one peer country, Denmark, there were 20 peer countries that were looked at. And I did link that in there so you guys can see it. But you can see here on slide 13, in 1980, American children following the CDC immunization schedule received 23 vaccine doses and seven shots against seven different diseases, plus four oral polio drops. In 2024, the recommended number of routine vaccines had risen to at least 84 vaccine doses in at least 57 shots for 17 diseases plus the RSV monoclonal antibody immunization for a total of 18. That is more than any other developed nation. And think about what I was saying earlier, if you don't mind me going back to it. Pharmaceutical companies are not liable for the safety of these products, and we do not have robust, durable clinical trials on them. So you can see why there has been some of the hesitation around this. This is sort of an intense picture in slide 14, but it does show where we were in 1986 with vaccines for a baby compared to 2025, when the pharmaceutical industry lost their liability, or they weren't liable. Slide fifteen-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna say in utero, you saying that it's recommended for Exactly, exactly.

[Speaker 0]: Yep.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: So that's- Yeah, I know people would not question, would maybe question that- Absolutely. No, absolutely. And people do, for sure. And then slide 15, I did link this. This was, and I would suggest in all your spare time, I know you guys are all slamming right now, but this assessment of The US childhood and adolescent immunization schedule compared to other countries, This is what was released that has caused this great stir of, woah, we just went from 17 to 11, what's happening? So you can see some of the details of where The US really was the outlier. And now we're coming into what's called consensus vaccines. What are other countries doing? What seems safe? What should we go with comparatively? And then just a few more slides. I did just wanna walk you guys quick through, if you don't mind, slide 16. The hep B Recumbivax timeline, I think it, B has obviously been a big question right now because of what they've come out to say. But on slide 16, so just so you all know, after the National Vaccine Childhood N3 Act passed and pharmaceutical companies had liability, hepatitis B came out after that in 1986 and was approved by the FDA. It was the first genetically modified virus used in a vaccine, which in and of itself was highly controversial if you talk to any organic farmer who has concerns about genetically modified proteins. Studied for five days with 147 children up to, oh, that shouldn't be 19, that should be 10 years of age, my bad. So that should be up to 10 years of age. So October 1237, Informed Consent Action Network sent a letter to Health and Human Services requesting the Hep B safety data. January 1838, they received a letter back from them which failed to provide further clinical trial safety data. Everything's linked. Two more letters were submitted requesting the safety data. They were ignored. And then Informed Consent Action Network submitted a FOIA demanding a copy of the clinical trials relied upon for license for Cumbivax. They received a twelve sixty four page document confirming the vaccine was only reviewed for a few days post injection. The FDA refused to respond to further requested clinical trials data. So on 09/04/2020, that group filed a petition to the FDA, quote, demanding that the licensure of the hep B vaccine be revoked or suspended until the safety as required by law is determined in a properly designed clinical trial of sufficient duration. There's been no response to this, and I don't know where that case is landing, but there is of course question in my mind, is this some of what's going on with the hepatitis B vaccine because they can't show further research. And then the only other piece here, I think I just had two more on this Informed Consent Action Network. They're quote about this petition. There may be some uncertainty as to what is required under federal law to determine that a product is safe prior to licensure, but what is clear is that five days cannot possibly be sufficient to meet that requirement. Hence, if the FDA refuses to grant or timely respond to ICANN's petition, we intend to sue the FDA in federal court to demand a license for these vaccines be revoked or suspended until a proper clinical trial is conducted. And this is hepatitis B. And then informed consent. I just wanna make sure that we all are clear on the definition of this. This is something that HealthChoice Vermont have been advocating for since 2012. Amy obviously referenced it in her testimony as well. Many Vermonters feel strongly about this. I know my patients and my students do. So the American Medical Association, slide 18, Code of Medical Ethics states that quote, Informed consent in medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so they can make well considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making. I think that you guys had heard the term shared clinical decision making. That's

[Rep. Esme Cole]: one of

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: the things that's coming from some of these changes on a federal level, and that's already happening. And that ideally should be happening. And this is also why primary care is so important. You can work with a doctor who knows you and knows your history, and you can have a conversation with, and you can make these actual informed decisions. Also in the Public Health Code of Ethics, the American Public Health Association says, quote, The effective and ethical practice of public health depends upon social and cultural conditions of respect for personal autonomy, self determination, privacy, and the absence of domination in its many interpersonal and institutional forms. Now just getting into informed consent, because this kind of goes to where I feel like just some considerations on the bill. So I had a good talk with Commissioner Hildebrandt, I guess it was last week. And I completely understand where he's coming from, from a standpoint of, I need to secure access to these. I wanna make sure that these are affordable. And I wanna make sure that insurance is covering it. He's not, as you had already stated, there's not a mandate that's happening here, because then there would be chaos in the state

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: of health, trust me. But there's no mandate.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I know this is a recommended piece.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: And so I understand that part of it. Right now, healthcare providers who are giving vaccines are protected because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They are protected and indemnified just like the pharmaceutical industry is. So at this time, because everything is on the schedule and they're just trying to break it into categories of shared clinical decision making or high risk populations, basically what they're saying is, you know what, have a conversation with your doctor. Like my husband and I, we did not do the hepatitis B vaccine for our three children. None of us have high risk behavior. We've never had high risk behavior. We know our lifestyles. We've been able to meet and talk with the doctor and just say, this doesn't make sense for us. And so basically, that's what they're sort of encouraging in this. So I also feel like we have to be careful and not let this sort of science and this whole change be politicized and just bring it back to calm down and what is this really? And so the hepatitis B vaccine information sheet I have on page 19, and this is right from the CDC website, but these are not considered informed consent. Some doctors will give these, some doctors will not, but the CDC specifically says people sometimes use the term informed consent loosely when referring to a vaccine information sheet. Vaccine information sheets are written to fulfill the information requirements of that Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, they're not as informed consent forms. And this is where some states, you can see on slide 19, some states do have informed consent laws. And this is something that we were trying to do in age 61, which is in the healthcare committee, where basically you're saying, how is, well, part of it is, how is a doctor or healthcare provider ensuring that a patient receives informed consent prior to making these decisions? So I'll come back to this, but I just wanted to point out that the vaccine information sheets are not informed consent. And then I do have, I'll get it to you afterward, but the Recumbivax HP, the package insert is 10 pages long. And in section six of a package insert for a vaccine, as required by law, they need to list adverse reactions and clinical trials experience. So you can see in this Recumbivax one where it said one hundred and forty seven infants up to the age of 10, and safety monitored for five days. So you can see where that comes from. But in a package insert, you can also at least see what are some of the adverse events that we saw. This would be a much better approach to ensuring informed consent. Because obviously, Caitlin, who died from the flu zone vaccine, which has mercury, by the way, her mother did not feel that she had received informed consent. And some, I think it's probably gonna vary across the board with doctors what they're offering or not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have a question about that, Alison. Because I guess there would have to be a pretty specific definition of what constitutes informed consent, because I think you talk to any one individual. So I might believe that a drug that I'm taking, read the information that comes. I know I can ask a question. I feel like I'm giving my informed consent. I'm taking it Exactly. Other people might say, no, that's insufficient. And I need somebody to, whether it's a pharmacist or a health other healthcare professional or whatever to sit down and talk to me about what are all the side effects, what are the possibilities of that happening to me, what are the benefits, what are the Exactly. That

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: And so there's no standard There that you're isn't.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think it will be different for each person. Do you know what I mean? Based upon their level of understanding medical stuff, their ability to sort of assert themselves in a medical situation, which a lot of people do not. They think the doctors know everything. And that's where I've thought about this as well, because two of the

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: things that I feel like, I struggle with the liability shield in this bill right now, because they have liability at this point. And if the federal government is going to shift and there's any change there and the state decides to take that on under their recommendations, who's taking that liability? Is that an off label use that that becomes? So I just feel like that starts to get into this gray area. Maybe judiciary will take some

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of this They're looking at it. I guess one of the thing that, this is just me personally speaking, not committee stuff. I think that the bigger issue is the one that you've outlined in the first several slides, and that's the protections that pharmaceutical companies have at the national level. And that's what we should be attacking, not the healthcare professionals.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: I agree fully. That would be amazing. And there's definitely model language and bills from many states right now who are attempting to deal with that because it's been going on for decades. And that would force them to do the real clinical trials. I mean, that would get to the heart of the problem. I mean, that really would.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, I can see that, I'm trying to think practically, I can see that companies were being bankrupted. I get that. But like you said, how do you put a price tag on the loss of a child or an adverse reaction? You can't really. Right? No. So I can see that there would need to be at the federal level, sort of limit on the amount of damages that somebody could get. But just to have total immunity is- I

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: think it's representative Massey right now who might have that bill in Congress. And then there's states, Dems, Republicans across different states who are like, absolutely not. We all know big pharma's history. Granted, we are happy and grateful for them for the lives they save and the products that they have. But otherwise, we know their corporate stakeholder profit. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they don't have immunity on anything else. On the other products. The other products that they sell.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: It has to be shifted. Thank you for bringing that up. That really is a significant issue in this whole topic. Yeah. Yeah. And then, so I think the other thing I did wanna mention is if you guys are moving forward with the liability piece, which I just feel like that's covered and that should be looked at more, but age 69, we've had in here in the House as a bill, I think for ten years. Representative Higley, you allowed him to introduce that bill last session, thank you. And so what all that does is very simple. And to me, if the state is thinking we are going to be taking this level of responsibility, so to speak, we're gonna be doing these recommendations for people to consider, then age 69, in my opinion, should absolutely be a part of it. Because all that does is it says the vaccine adverse event reporting system was put in place by this 1986 law so we could monitor safety, so we could look at the issues around vaccines. All that does is it requires them to put together a report to present to the legislature annually. So you guys could be like, okay, what's going on? And it would also allow them to see, why did we have 37 kids who had a reaction to this vaccine? Maybe we need to look into that a little bit more. So I think it would help everybody to, and to me, it's a very responsible move with where the state, if the state moves this bill forward and this becomes law, it would just allow a greater sort of surveillance of what's happening in Vermont with vaccine injury and harm. And it wouldn't be a lot because that system is already in place and they would just be compiling and sharing with you guys. So I just wanted to plug that in as an option for consideration. I just think it would make a big difference. And then the other part, of course, is back to what you said, Chair Wood, is the informed consent piece. And I would just also suggest if there is going to be liability given to health care providers offering vaccines, there seems there should be some sort of standard procedure that they go to or something that you sign off on that you've received informed consent. It seems like whether they take a training video, whether required for licensure, I just feel like that should be explored for some doctors talk about it, some don't, but like you pointed out, it's gonna be across the board what they do and also what someone expects. So I just feel like that would, to me, just make this whole process cleaner to make sure that people are getting that and are more making a better decision.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I get that. And I honestly think there could probably be a whole separate standalone bill about informed consent to be

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: the Yes, we do have one actually. So that might

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be something. I think one of the things, because I'm coming back again trying to make sure everybody understands on the same page that this is about recommendations. It's not about requirements. Exactly. That I'd probably be reluctant at this point in time to try to squeeze something else into the bill.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: I would definitely consider, if you don't mind me saying that 69, it's I hear you. Yeah, very simple. Okay, Representative Cole has a question.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you. One thing that keeps coming up for me too, and it seems to be a through line between the past two presentations was access to really good, strong data and research. And in contemporary times, we've seen major major cuts at the CDC for exactly that. And so I'm struggling here. I think this is one of the reasons precisely why we are doing 5.5 is to, if the CDC is suggesting that that's something that they're not valuing at the moment, it's like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This research, is that what

[Nancy Hogue (Pharmacy Director, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: you're saying?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah, based on the way their budget has looked, something I think that is important to us on the Vermont level and we need to prioritize that big time. I just. I'm sorry.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Can I interrupt just for a moment?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Amy, I'm just inquiring about whether you're recording or not. Yeah. Okay. I just think it's important for people who have their back to you to know that they're being recorded. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Just noticed it and I just just wanted people with their backs too to know that. That's all. That's all.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yeah. I also, on one of the slides, something that stuck out to me was, of course, you had some major vaccines and then discussing like the five trials or something about the Pfizer trials? Or five, very limited number of trials. For the vaccines. Exactly. And it just brings me back to history class. It's not history for everyone because it was lived experience for many, but polio. And that was huge in American history and not just America, but around the world. And it's just, I feel like that particular slide doesn't capture the whole story.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, know. That's where it was

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: like the short period of time. There'd be so much to go through. There's a lot on polio

[Rep. Esme Cole]: to Yeah. Make And I just couldn't imagine a world without that vaccine. Mean, of course, many others, but I just, it's hard. Like, I think there's a much bigger conversation and I appreciate you are bringing one perspective and you've thought a lot about this to the table, but this is huge. And I think our differences between where the CDC is expressing its values, I agree, liability in pharmaceutical companies is definitely a huge issue to address, but I think we need to demonstrate where we stand in our values and taking care of the health of the Morrissey and I

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: would love to talk to you more about the polio piece afterward, because I know that's not the focus right now. But the other thing I would say is that is what many people would argue is actually what's happening on a federal level right now is there hasn't been good solid science around this. The pharmaceutical industry has been not held viable and we need to relook at this. So there's, again, you always have these differing perspectives. That's where I would encourage you in the last slide, it's a 33 page report that they came out explaining why they changed it. And I think that that is really worth your time to just try to understand if we can remove some of, I know what the spin does and the social media does of it all, like, let's just get back to real science and demand real science. And that's where you, I would say that many people are arguing that that's exactly what's playing out right now and happening.

[Speaker 0]: When you say that, it's playing

[Sebastian Erduanga (Department of Financial Regulation)]: out at that's what's happening. I'm very sorry.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: If you

[Rep. Esme Cole]: could just close out on a comment too, would, course, the world is so politicized right now, especially on this topic, but the science that have been funded through the CDC, these are independent research institutions. It's not who's in office necessarily is deciding like which- Well,

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: they're not in attendance if you don't mind me saying in the sense of- Well,

[Rep. Esme Cole]: they're universities and scholars.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Well, they're the SCA commissioners, and this is my nutrition realm that I teach on for twenty five years. All of the ITA commissioners that we've had in the last more than a decade have gone and worked for big pharma. And no one more than Scott Gottlieb, who went and worked for Pfizer, and you could talk to Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren because they called him out tremendously because of this revolving door issue. And the CDC does also own 57 patents. So when we started, that's like a whole other rabbit hole, to be honest, of how unbiased are they? How are they doing from a regulating? But I also just don't want to cut into time. Did you have one other question for me? Because I just had one last wrap up. I'll call on you.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Okay, did you want to? Feel free.

[Speaker 0]: I have no idea.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: When I was talking about this and that, if that's what I was understanding, it's more of what they're trying to rectify is the lack of research that many believe has been happening around this topic. So that's what many believe are seeing is we are trying to get down to doing real science. And that's where I would encourage you, And I'll send it to you separately as well, that 33 page report that came out with them explaining and justifying why did we just go from 17 to 11.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we have that link. Yes, you do. Yes. Absolutely great. And lastly, in your testimony. So I am gonna ask you to wrap up, Alison.

[Alison Descathie (HealthChoice Vermont, co-director)]: Is just the last piece. So basically just from the HealthChoice Vermont crew, as a co director, we bring together over 500 Concerned Vermonters since 2012. We've been advocating for transparency, accountability, choice in all vaccine and medical policies. Bless you. Bless you. We're a nonprofit funded only by small donations, and we believe people should have the freedom to choose and the right to refuse. Over the years, we've followed Vermont vaccine legislation closely. Just in our position that parents know their children, family, and medical history best and must be left free to make informed medical decisions for their minor children, that in many cases vaccination conflicts with deeply held moral philosophical and religious beliefs held by families and individuals, and that the state should protect every person's right to hold conscientious objections. That patients and parents deserve to be informed and updated about vaccine ingredients, clinical trials data, and actual outcomes of those who took the products as compared to those not taking the products. And let's keep in mind, aluminum, which is a neurotoxin, is in the majority of vaccines. This information is essential for doctor patient trust and for true informed consent. We also have our position that in no instance should anyone be pressured to take a vaccine, especially by persons who wish to be indemnified from liability, like the pharmaceutical companies. And our position is also that all vaccine reactions should be actively followed, and state and federal policies should be changed accordingly when new safety signals become known so we can improve outcomes and reduce chronic disease. And just a few last comments, and thank you. Currently, we have some of the most expensive health care, the highest vaccination rates, and the worst health outcomes in the developed world. ACIP, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, is the federal committee that makes vaccine recommendations followed by all US states and is used to build the vaccination schedule now enforced in daycares, schools and colleges in Vermont. In June 2025, Health and Human Services overhauled ACIP and limited who would be permitted to influence members to reduce conflicts of interest. Then key data sets already on file were reviewed, strong safety signals were examined, and key decisions were made. January 5, new vaccine recommendations based on a 33 page comprehensive scientific assessment were announced. That's what I've referenced here. Most notably, for the first time in history, ACIP reduced the number of shots they will recommend to parents as universal immunizations. And it is worth noting that the AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics, is not an independent organization, but a 501c3 nonprofit, which until last month received funding from both vaccine manufacturers and the CDC and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In December 2025, Health and Human Services terminated multiple federal grants worth 18 to 20,000,000 to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The organization brought in 140,000,000 last year, paid their executive employees over 8,000,000, spends approximately 1,000,000 a year in lobbying and gets funding from big pharma. We obviously already discussed the 1986 and the PREP Act. And then basically the last piece that we just had, if you're not able to say no to May, and obviously I know you have your reasons where you're moving it forward, we just had our last requests. One, protect Vermont's children and adults by ensuring a process for fully informed consent prior to vaccination. We have some recommended language that we've submitted as well. Parents and children have a right to know what's in the vial, safety testing and effects. Number two, remove the provision in section two eighteen VSA subsection eleven thirty AC on page seven, enabling immunity from liability. We do need accountability and they should be able to stand behind any recommendations. Number three, add reporting on adverse reactions related to immunizations. As I mentioned with age 69, Vermont should be performing active safety surveillance, especially if they move in the direction of age 45. Number four, add funding for the follow-up and assistance for those experiencing adverse reactions. Number five, learn about adverse reactions and actual health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. And otherwise, we thank you so much, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony. And I did put my contact information if there's anything in there. And I'll make sure you guys have all the hard copies, emailed copies of everything. And I'll pass this around as my last. This was just a hard copy for everybody there. Thank you. So thank you so much for the opportunity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Allison. Thank you. You, Allison. Again, thank you for the links to all the documents.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Definitely. I know that's helpful to know what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you're gonna looking at. Be helpful, yes. Make sure we're talking about the same thing.

[Committee staff/facilitator (unidentified, possibly Laurie)]: Exactly, yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. I did bring perfect handouts, a comparison of the handout that you received from your doctor. Okay. Thank you. And Alison, you submit this to Laurie to post? I'm going

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: to submit that right now. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. So I'm not going

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: take a hard time. Okay. So I'd like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to leave either if I And I don't even know if I did enough. Hopefully I did. Okay. Yeah. A lot of us like the electronic version, so we know right where to find it. Okay. I've seen it go both ways. Yeah. Thank you so Thank you. Appreciate it. Yep. Thanks. Okay, folks. We're going to Let me just see. We have time for a brief break. If I say five minutes, can people really do it in five minutes? Okay. Five minutes, Laurie. Thank you. Katie.