Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Massachusetts Senate pass bill 2028: Quarantine or $1000 a day fine for refusing the vaccine

page: 5
96
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
great now i need the vaccinne wasnt acctualy planning on gettin since it isnt that bad anyway complete bs




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


That right.

It's called a Cytokine Storm.

From Wiki (and thousands of other sites):




When the immune system is fighting pathogens, cytokines signal immune cells such as T-cells and macrophages to travel to the site of infection. In addition, cytokines activate those cells, stimulating them to produce more cytokines. Normally, this feedback loop is kept in check by the body. However, in some instances, the reaction becomes uncontrolled, and too many immune cells are activated in a single place. The precise reason for this is not entirely understood but may be caused by an exaggerated response when the immune system encounters a new and highly pathogenic invader. Cytokine storms have potential to do significant damage to body tissues and organs. If a cytokine storm occurs in the lungs, for example, fluids and immune cells such as macrophages may accumulate and eventually block off the airways, potentially resulting in death.[citation needed]


Link: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
This is ridiculous.

Who in their right mind could possibly think this is a good idea? I ask all of the senators who passed this bill.

Absolutely beyond comprehension. Pure, unadulterated stupidity.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by son of total newbie
If a person takes the shots, then what is to prevent TPTB from coming back, say in six months time and saying the shots weren't good enough and you had to take a couple more? And on and on?

I guess at that point you would finally realize that you had "been boned".


There are actually two that will be given out because this flu is supposed to be SO deadly. And I don't mean two as in regular flu shots and swine flu shots but two of the latter now and later because again, they have not tested this [boo-boo] shot. What makes it more sad is that the [good government] who make this [sweet] stuff do not have to take it. YES, that's right. I bet your senator, representative, and mayors and their children are all [cookies and milk] exempt. Only the people will have to take this [lollipops and sugar].

(all swear words have been replaced with polite phrases as ordered by your local government. We thank you and don't forget to get your kids vaccinated. It's important, y'know)



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jdmjam
 


Yeah? Don't count your chickens just yet matey...you know as well as i do, that whatever America does the UK isn't too far behind.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Now they are circulating this "meme" that HALF the population is going to get Swine Flu.

Really? Half? Just like clockwork -- this fall and winter -- half of us are going to get Swine Flu? Really?

This smells. I've never had a flu shot in my life, and I don't plan on starting now. I NEVER get the flu. And I've worked in casinos for the past four years, exposed to tens of thousands of different people.

-- Justin



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


That's a nice stockpile you have there...i'm assuming they're yours?

It's OK for you lot over the pond, but what are we supposed to do, hurl harsh words...I seriously wish we had the right to arms as you do right about now.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
More ovverreaction. All it says that if you are found to be a threat, i.e. you catch the swine flu or whatever epidemic dujour is going around at that time, then you will be required to take a shot or be quarantined or fined. It makes sense unless it used improperly. It is presumptous to jump to the conclusion that it will be used improperly.

Let use an example of what this means. Lets say your child has measles. Let's say you deny medical care and insist on sending your child to school despite the fact that they can infect others. Quarantine and or/fines make perfect sense in this scenario.

They are not forcing anyone to take shots, however, if you refuse to do so and are found to be infected, and still deny care then you will face these actions. It is just common sense to me. If it gets abused then it will be time to fight it, but not until then.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
How easily the citizenry becomes domestic criminal terrorists at the stroke of a pen.

This is how it will go down when tshtf. You object to a mandatory vaccination and suddenly you are forcibly quarantined for up to six months.

God bless America....Land of the not so free!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by Genfinity
 


yep that's why we stock up on these...




Off topic post but... Dang whoever owns those is paying some serious federal reserve notes on a yearly basis to the BATFE for the suppressors and SBR's.

Back on topic. Having been forced to live in MA for a few years for graduate school this just seems par for the course. Liberty minded patriots need to move and let that place tax itself into oblivion. It is the only place I have ever lived where towns taxed me just for owning a car.

For a region that was so critical during the revolution they sure seem to have forgotten their roots.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by djpleiades
 


Thanks for the link, this is the first i'd heard on Marijuana being a possible treatment.

I know it can and has been proven to work wonders in other areas, but this is the first time I've heard about it Vs. Viruses.

I'll have a look.

Edit to add: This is (if you haven't already) probably a GREAT time to stock up on long shelf life foodstuffs and supplies. I'd estimate you'd want at LEAST 6 months worth for yourself and family.

Especially if you live in Mass, and you intend to defy the creeps in power, but it's a good idea to do it where ever you are, because this is probably going to snowball into a countrywide or even worldwide policy of forcing you to have the crap.

I doubt they will roll in with tanks and such, and start blasting away (although you never know these days), but i think one of the tools the will certainly use, especially if whole towns and villages tell them to F*** off, is to deprive you of Food, water and electricity, and turn it into a food and supplies for taking the crap vaccine kind of deal.

Stock up, and stock up now.

[edit on 26/8/2009 by spikey]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Does anyone have a link to this bill? People are asking. I have got to get to work.

Thanks,

Recon3



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by jtma508


Let's imagine that there IS an H1N1 outbreak and the organism recombines into a truly deadly organism along the lines of the 1918 Spanish Flu.


If that happens then the vaccine they developed would be useless against it anyway. They made the vaccine before it "recombined" so it would not be effective against any mutated strain.


This legislation does not force anyone to get the vaccine. It clearly states 'unable or unwilling'.


Anyone unwilling to get the vaccine will be fined $1000 per day and or quarantined (in other words locked up away from your home and family). That sounds like forced to me. Who can afford that fine? I know I can't and I also can't afford to be quarantined so I am unable to work and pay my bills. What choice do you have?



[edit on 8/26/2009 by Erasurehead]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
More ovverreaction. All it says that if you are found to be a threat, i.e. you catch the swine flu or whatever epidemic dujour is going around at that time, then you will be required to take a shot or be quarantined or fined. It makes sense unless it used improperly. It is presumptous to jump to the conclusion that it will be used improperly.

Let use an example of what this means. Lets say your child has measles. Let's say you deny medical care and insist on sending your child to school despite the fact that they can infect others. Quarantine and or/fines make perfect sense in this scenario.

They are not forcing anyone to take shots, however, if you refuse to do so and are found to be infected, and still deny care then you will face these actions. It is just common sense to me. If it gets abused then it will be time to fight it, but not until then.


This vaccine is supposed to taken as a preventative measure, to keep it from spreading. It is like the flu shot. You get the flu shot as a preventative measure. So, yes, you might want to worry about it being forced. There has yet to be an epidemic caused by this swine flu and probably won't be one until you take the shot. What most concern you should have is the fact that the vaccines are not even tested to work. I've never heard of a vaccine being put out without being approved to be effective.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
More ovverreaction. All it says that if you are found to be a threat, i.e. you catch the swine flu or whatever epidemic dujour is going around at that time, then you will be required to take a shot or be quarantined or fined. It makes sense unless it used improperly. It is presumptous to jump to the conclusion that it will be used improperly.

Let use an example of what this means. Lets say your child has measles. Let's say you deny medical care and insist on sending your child to school despite the fact that they can infect others. Quarantine and or/fines make perfect sense in this scenario.

They are not forcing anyone to take shots, however, if you refuse to do so and are found to be infected, and still deny care then you will face these actions. It is just common sense to me. If it gets abused then it will be time to fight it, but not until then.


Taking a vaccine after you catch the swine flu? The vaccine is meant to prevent getting the flu so you would be required to take it while you are perfectly healthy. This should be voluntary and not forced on people. By all means feel free to get the vaccine. I will chose not to and take my chances with the virus.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
And like the flu you still can get the new strain of it regardless of vaccine or not.

Still nobody knows if the swain flu is just one strain or like big pharma wants us to believe is mutating.

That means any vaccine they create will probably doesn't work to begin with.

So how many vaccines are you willing to get to hit jackpot.

Interesting, but is ok get 4 or 6 jabs a year so you can be safe and big pharma can keep making profits.

Oh, yes the swine flu comes in two.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by huntergatherer

#### them all

What bull####

You got shots for us,.....We got shots for you

######RETARDS


Perhaps not the post eloquent post.. But it's the truth. In fact, I planning on buying another uh .. "vaccination" real soon, if you get my drift.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


That's exactly it...they contradict themselves at almost every turn don't they!

They say repeatedly, that come the fall/winter they expect it to mutate to a deadly form and the deaths come thick and fast right?

Then in an interview on UK TV, the UK DOH chief virologist (forget his name at the minute) said (i'm paraphrasing) in response to the question of mutations, "It's NOT that we are expecting the swine flu virus to mutate and become more deadly, it's that we are expecting vastly higher numbers of people to become infected by the CURRENT strain, and as the numbers of infected rise exponentially, so too will the death RATE...

In other words, NO they don't think it will mutate, but due to sheer weight of numbers being infected with the current MILD(ish) virus, the death rates will rise as the infected numbers rise.

!!!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
They are not forcing anyone to take shots, however, if you refuse to do so and are found to be infected, and still deny care then you will face these actions. It is just common sense to me. If it gets abused then it will be time to fight it, but not until then.


No they won't put a gun to your head and make you get jabbed.

They will coerce and threaten you you with imprisonment (house arrest or worse a state/fed quarantine camp) plus a civil penalty (1K per day in fines).


If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court. During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.

Source

If you refuse to be pricked and poked they can quarantine you while they get a court order and then you will be forced to undergo any testing they deem necessary.




[edit on 26-8-2009 by lucentenigma]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
There's a good deal of good thought in this thread but I have to tell you there is a huge amount of ignorance and hyperbole. Nowhere does the bill say that quarantine means hauling you off to some detention facility. The way that this has been handled historically is to qurantine people in their homes. EXACTLY as they did when it broke out originally.

The seasonal flu shot IS a vaccine.

The vaccine (as is the case will all vaccines) stimulates your immune system to isolate and destroy organisms with certain marker proteins. The whole idea of vaccinated a population is to slow the spread of the organism by providing fewer hosts. The smaller pool of hosts reduces the probability that the organism will recombine into something more dangerous. It's a numbers game. More opportunity = greater probability.

I understand all the big brother concerns, etc. But I'll ask the same question that I did before:

You can ascribe any conspiracy angle you want tyo this but the fact is H1N1 is virulent and there is a very real POTENTIAL risk of a very dangerous (1918esque) pandemic. You are the legislator of your own private Idaho. An outbreak occurs and people start getting sick and dying at an alarming rate.

What do you do? What's your response to the situation?





new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join