What if the government decrees a mandatory vaccination program and tries to enforce it at gunpoint, , page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 28-7-2009 @ 08:57 AM by CultureD
reply to post by pwrthtbe


Yes- Avian and Swine flu are being used in the language in all cases, intermittently. It is obvious that an assortment is expected in the far East or in Egypt, or that it has already occurred-OR- that it is expected by planned methodology.

I also posted a thread via CIDRAP that is an outline of the National Strategic Plan in the event of a destabilizing epidemic (and often, Avian flu is cited, rather than the current strain- although I don't know if this is due to when the documents were drawn up--as Avian flu was determined a threat under GWB-- or if Avian flu is expected to be a larger event than admitted to by the MSM.

It's a long .pdf, filled with a lot of crap, but if you can wade through it, I think it holds some vital info, re: our rights to refuse vaccinations (sure we can- but we'll be taken from homes and housed in a quarantine or isolation facility); how and when the Federal Government will take over the States' laws, etc. When read in tandem with the post I gave you it's chilling picture.

PLEASE do share this information- I find it critical to all of us- for if the US sets an example of Martial enforcement, gun-point medicine, legal indemnity against dire side effects, etc., many other countries might follow our destructive lead.

Thanks for posting, keep in touch, and take good care of yourself.

Peace,

C

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-7-2009 by CultureD]


reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 02:33 PM by m khan
What ever you do, do not take Swine Flu shots.
There may not be enough US military, but today is last day of NLE 09, and there are a lot of UN troops here.
I don't have the link but heard that there was an Israeli soldier who was talking to a guy in Arizona and told him that they would be here for a month.
At the beginning of "Overwatch" someone had a video of a Fema "evacuation" bus with no windows, just ventilators.
www.godlikeproductions.com...

[edit on 1-8-2009 by m khan]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by m khan]


reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 09:55 AM by fleabit
Just to play devil's advocate:

If there was a disease (or even a more virulent form of this current flu), which threatened the entire nation, and only a vaccination would prevent massive death tolls, you think it is wrong for the government to try and enforce these? They should simply respect everyone's "right" to do as they will, even if their refusal could infect and cost the lives of countless others? This really seems right to you?

You have to consider, currently, the world is in a state where it simply has never been in the past. Congested cities, huge populations, this is new and different. And perhaps it should be treated differently.

It reminds me of the massive forest fires over the last several years. The natural order of things was to weed out underbrush, have fires, keep the system clear. But then everyone got onto the conservation bandwagon. We stopped such clearing. We stomped out fires quickly. Until suddenly, the forests were huge tinderboxes waiting to go up in massive flames... which many have. Times change. Either we change with them, or we suffer the consequences.

So... let's say there is no "evil agenda," this is just a natural virus going around, but it's quite nasty. And they believe only massive vaccinations would curtail it. Say... instead of 80 million dead, only 30 million would die (because quite frankly, those vaccinations don't always work). Would it be worth it? Or is your right to say "no!" more important than those additional 50 million people?


reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 10:46 AM by nepafogo
Looks like mandatory vaccinations are already starting in some countries.

"ATHENS (Reuters) - Greece will vaccinate its entire population of 12 million against the H1N1 swine flu pandemic which has swept around the world in weeks, killing hundreds of people, the country's health minister said on Friday.
The Mediterranean country, which receives about 15 million tourists every year, has confirmed more than 700 swine flu cases and no deaths, but world health experts say the true number of cases globally is far higher as only a few patients get tested.

"We decided that the entire population, all citizens and residents, without any exception, will be vaccinated against the flu," Health Minister Dimitris Avramopoulos said after a ministerial meeting.

Greece has already earmarked 40 million euros for vaccines and has placed orders with Novartis, Glaxo and Sanofi for 8 million vaccine doses, to be received gradually by January.

Vaccine experts say people will likely need two doses of vaccine to be protected from H1N1 swine flu, so Greece would need a total of 24 million doses to vaccinate its entire population. Other countries are taking similar steps.

"Greece will order 16 million more doses from the same companies in the future," a health ministry official who declined to be named told Reuters. "We are only waiting for the European Union's approval to start vaccinating everyone."

The European Medicines Agency has begun reviewing pandemic flu vaccines under development, aiming to get them approved before the flu season starts, sometime in September.

The health ministry official said children, the elderly and ailing would be the first to be vaccinated.

About 800 people have died worldwide since the outbreak of the flu in April."

link: www.reuters.com...


reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 08:40 PM by swjslj
reply to post by spearhead


Your logic is faulty. If the vaccines work as we're told, anyone getting the vaccine will not catch the flu from me if I do not get the vaccine. If I do not get the vaccine and I get the flu, I can only transmit it to other people who did not get vaccinated,. Obviously anyone who didn't get vaccinated has decided to accept the risk. And personally, God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, endowed us with immune systems for a reason. I'll take my chances with the flu.


reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 08:45 PM by swjslj
reply to post by fleabit


I think the individual's right to say 'no' is more important. Those saying 'no' accept the risk and should only be able to infect others who have decided not to get vaccinated. There is no ethical dilemma here.


reply posted on 10-11-2010 @ 09:44 PM by xyankee

well lets say you refused to vaccinate your children along with a large amount of other people.
You take your kids to the park where they run around and play with all the other wonderfuul little children. 3 days later your child breaks out in rash of red dots all over his body. Measles. Your child could be dead within days.

had you submitted for vaccinations it couldn't of happened. also, in those three days before the symptoms arose on your child, they wouldn't have spread the disease to anyone else they came in contact with.

reply to post by spearhead


Well that would have been a choice I made. Not one forced on me!.

Well lets say you were vaccinated and your child along with others, I take my child to the park who is not vaccinated, what danger are you and the others in? None, cause you had your child vaccinated, right? So what danger do the people who did not get the shot pose to others? The only ones who could possibly get sick would be the ones who chose not to be vaccinated.


reply posted on 11-11-2010 @ 11:41 AM by xyankee
reply to post by awakening1


Something to make a point about on this, People who are neighbors and friends, need to take a stand on what is going on in there neighborhood. People need to get actively involved in protecting each other, no matter what the cost is. If you see activity at a neighbors house, with police or what ever, get up off your but, go over, and talk to your neighbor, not the outsider, your neighbor, and if something like this is happening then band together to the end to stop it.


reply posted on 11-12-2010 @ 04:50 AM by gnosticquasar
reply to post by spearhead


Actually, I think that vaccines are probably safe in general. It's the thought of a mandatory vaccination that I don't like. If the mortality rate of the disease was 20 or 30%, it'd be quite different. I believe that my ownership of my body outweighs the very small risk that I pose to people by not getting vaccinated. Besides, when the risk of dying from a disease is not significantly higher than the disfigurement/death rate caused by vaccination, then I especially have a problem with it.


reply posted on 11-12-2010 @ 05:20 AM by space cadet
reply to post by joe82

If the government wants me to take a vaccine, and I really thought it was for some depopulation procedure, I would think that holding a gun to one's head and pulling the trigger would most likely work quicker, cheaper, less to talk about for sure, why would they want to slow kill their people when they could just nuke em or shootem up? The question of would you take the vaccince versus a bullet to the head is useless if you think the vaccine is gonna kill you.

Now what would make more sense in that scenario, is, if people won't take a vaccine because they are afraid it is going to kill them, but really it is going to save not only their own life, but help stop the spread of whatever ill it is vaccinating against, then those people have become a threat to themselves and others. Now I could see putting a plan into action to stop the spread of a preventable disease.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



As Vaccinations Decline, Whooping Cough Returns
  Posted 13 days ago with 3 member flags
Operation Medicine Delivery
  Posted 17 days ago with 2 member flags
FDA Panel Recommends First HIV-Prevention Drug
  Posted 16 days ago with 1 member flags
Most Skitzophrenics are SANE
  Posted 7 days ago with 1 member flags