Governments to "Share" Emergency Health Information BEFORE Public Release in US, Canada and Mexico

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

How does this agreement muzzle scientists?
You didn't read it, did you?
edit on 5/24/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

S/F Sofi and another thread nicely done!




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soficrow

How does this agreement muzzle scientists?
You didn't read it, did you?


Of course I read it - and know full well that you're simply regurgitating and parroting the communications strategy. But I also read between the lines, relied on my experience, knowledge and instincts.

I know that whenever politicians and bureaucrats control information there is an agenda. You should know that too.

NOTE: If the governments are coordinating communications on health matters, then obviously, scientists are NOT allowed to speak on said matters. Especially if their information conflicts with "official" dogma.

This business of gagging and muzzling scientists is proceeding on every front - to political purpose, NOT to further truth, accuracy or anything good. In case you missed these:

Canadian scientists protest government muzzling of researchers

Gagging order on scientists probing dolphin deaths

A newly retired muzzled Canadian scientist speaks out.

9/11: NY Firefighter Admits Gag Order on Video Tape

U.S. Still Silencing Scientists









edit on 24/5/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/5/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/5/14 by soficrow because: change word



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow



Of course I read it - and know full well that you're simply regurgitating and parroting the communications strategy. But I also read between the lines, relied on my experience, knowledge and instincts.

Thanks for the nice remarks about my critical thinking skills. Let me put it a different way.

If scientists are already being "muzzled" by governments, how does this agreement expand upon that muzzling? Why bother with the agreement, especially since it is not particularly binding on any of parties involved? Perhaps your instincts are somewhat overactive.

edit on 5/24/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soficrow



Of course I read it - and know full well that you're simply regurgitating and parroting the communications strategy. But I also read between the lines, relied on my experience, knowledge and instincts.

Thanks for the nice remarks about my critical thinking skills.


I really do have great respect for your ability to regurgitate and parrot communications strategies - it's not an easy task and you do it very well.


If scientists are already being "muzzled" by governments, how does this agreement expand upon that muzzling? Why bother with the agreement, especially since it is not particularly binding on any of parties involved? Perhaps your instincts are somewhat overactive.



The areas of muzzling are expanding. Not that public health matters have been ignored in the past - Mad Cow Disease and the gag order on scientists that resulted when prions were put on the 'special agents' list comes first to mind - but there are many more diseases that are swept under the rug. The standard rationale is that people will panic if they know there are incurable untreatable diseases spreading, and the economic implications are untenable. In addition, decision-makers still believe 'susceptibility' is genetic and "the strong will survive." All wrong, imho.

The agreement puts public health firmly in the hands of international corporations, by defining it as subject to international "Free" Trade law. Remember - corporations have equal status with nations under "Free" Trade. True, this is "just" an agreement in principle, but given history with such things, it's "just" the first step.

Does the First Amendment allow scientists to be muzzled? I don't think so.



fyi - My instincts are really really good.





.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

The agreement puts public health firmly in the hands of international corporations, by defining it as subject to international "Free" Trade law.
Sorry, I don't see that in the agreement. I see this.

This Declaration of Intent serves only as a record of the Participants' intentions and is not intended to be legally binding under international law, the laws of the Participants or any other law.
Seems to say the opposite of your claim. I said it was non-binding.

"Subject to Free Trade Law? " I know...reading between the lines. I guess that means seeing things that aren't there.


fyi - My instincts are really really good.
Instincts are for animals. We've learned that instincts aren't that useful. Nor is reading between the lines while not reading the lines. Nor is connecting dots without following the numbers.
edit on 5/24/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're pretty much all over the map, so here's the scoop.

1. Legally binding agreements are always preceded by a "declaration of intent" test run.

2. IF the governments are coordinating communications with the public, THEN scientists are muzzled to prevent contradictions and "confusion." [sic]

3. When this 'declaration of intent' moves to become (international) law it WILL give international corporations even more power over national governments.

....This agreement is about "joint coordination of public communications," NOT sharing scientific information, NOT coordinating resources - just getting together on the story - and by clear implication, muzzling scientists. The stated purpose is to better protect public health; the real purpose to protect international corporations economic interests.


TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the 2012 North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza, which outlines how all the three countries intend to strengthen and coordinate their emergency response capacities, including public communications...

...coordinated public communications

...joint coordination of public communications

...sharing of public information and communications products

INTEND to:

2. Share public communications plans, statements and other communications products related to health emergencies with each other prior to their public release.











edit on 24/5/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Thinkin' people might see the importance of this agreement about now.

FYI_

Jean- Marie Le Pen: Ebola epidemic would solve immigration problems





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join