Forced Swine Flu Vaccinations in Massachusetts, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 26 times


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:04 AM by Sliadon
reply to post by fleabit


That's the scary thing, is that it HAS passed. It only requires an executive order (by the Governor) at this point giving the Governor the right to use this power.

I think what the deeper issue is what the State Supreme Court will rule the actions. I can't imagine the citizens of Massachusetts sitting idly while their State Government tries such tyranny on them! A lawsuit would be a realistic outcome the second a federal or state employee tries to forcibly inject this vaccine into a child.

God forbid the State Supreme Court stands behind it, there is no way the National Supreme Court would allow evil to go unpunished. There would be a federal injunction faster than you could say "Silly Swine Flu Vaccine."


-Sliadon


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:15 AM by tompumped
Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by fleabit


That's the scary thing, is that it HAS passed. It only requires an executive order (by the Governor) at this point giving the Governor the right to use this power.

I think what the deeper issue is what the State Supreme Court will rule the actions. I can't imagine the citizens of Massachusetts sitting idly while their State Government tries such tyranny on them! A lawsuit would be a realistic outcome the second a federal or state employee tries to forcibly inject this vaccine into a child.

God forbid the State Supreme Court stands behind it, there is no way the National Supreme Court would allow evil to go unpunished. There would be a federal injunction faster than you could say "Silly Swine Flu Vaccine."


-Sliadon


I didn't know it has passed, I don't know how I missed/forgot that.
I need to sleep.


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:20 AM by Eye of Horus
reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


One thing the sales of firearms have gone up 1500%.
They'll be alot of people that will resist.
Blood will flow.





reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:23 AM by Sliadon
reply to post by tompumped


Hopefully this can help you out some Tom,

www.wickedlocal.com...


Catch up on those ZZZ'z. God knows I need to start hitting the hay soon!


-Sliadon


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 12:38 AM by Sliadon
reply to post by tompumped


Remember man,

This is not game over yet. The beautiful thing about our America is that we have not lost complete freedom. Sure, many of us (myself included) have gotten caught up in doomsday V for Vendetta like mindsets with the sky falling, but we still have the judicial system to count on should the State of Massachusetts actually try to get away with something like this.

Myself? I'm hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. Now, that comes more easily said for someone like myself who resides much further away from Massachusetts, but even still I would not give up hope yet.

Keep your head up friend.


-Sliadon


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 01:13 AM by Hemisphere
reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder


Thanks for the good and "Spooky" thread Fox.

Where better to launch forced vaccinations than in Massachusetts? The road has been paved.

Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country. It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else. - The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2009


Forced health care followed by forced vaccinations.

Another excerpt:

Like gamblers doubling down on their losses, Democrats have already hiked the fines for people who don't obtain insurance under the "individual mandate," already increased business penalties, taxed insurers and hospitals, raised premiums, and pumped up the state tobacco levy. - The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2009


And so in Massachusetts you already can be fined for no insurance and one could imagine the threat of fines or worse for no vaccination. We've heard rumblings of a bracelet tracking system. Would a vaccination bracelet be needed in order to enter a store, buy food, gas, go to work, go to school, etc?

The entire Wall Street Journal article:

The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 03:29 AM by Hemisphere
Originally posted by Tail-Eater
Lets all just calm down.

The way these things go usually is they test vaccinations on government workers first. Which is mandatory for me, coming this November if I'm not mistaken.

My experience may be subjected to review, but from my experience, I remember very well being subject to 2 different "flu-mists" back in 06-07.
Now I might be mistaken, but as far as I remember I was receiving this being deployed, before my friends overseas at my home base.

So that being said, calm down and let us, your usual guinea pigs bite the bullet and watch what really happens. First hand.


Thank you TE, I will watch.

What really troubles me about all of this is that the military may not be forcing the vaccination of our troops simply for their own safety. It might be a far more insidious reason causing our brave soldiers to be “shot” by our own government.

As I’ve shown you time and again, drugs are big business – among the most profitable enterprises on planet Earth. But within the patent medicine world, there’s a redheaded stepchild that just doesn’t usually make much money: Vaccines.

Why? For one, many vaccines (like this year’s much-ballyhooed flu vaccine) have to go through costly reformulation every single year to keep pace with the latest strains of killer bugs. Secondly, vaccines have to be offered for reasonable prices so that everyone can afford them � the bad press a drug company would face for jacking up vaccine prices would cost them far more than the extra profit they’d make on the vaccines themselves.

So it’s kind of a catch-22 for the drug makers. They have to develop vaccines to stay competitive, but unless they corner the market on a blockbuster vaccine for some new illness, it’s hard for them to make much money on this class of medications. Unless they’re selling millions of doses to the U.S. Department of Defense.

- excerpted from an article by William Campbell Douglass II, MD, posted on the Blackwater Report.com in December of 2004


The entire article:

Vaccinations and Military Guinea Pigs


reply posted on 24-9-2009 @ 05:57 PM by alien
Another thing to add to the mix is that, in regards to Health (be it your own or the wider health of society), there already exists - well, at least in my country of New Zealand anyway - processes/Acts that allow for the forced detainment and treatment of a country's citizens for their own good or for the good of that society.

An example of that would be the Mental Health Act and the associated Compulsory Treatment Orders that entails.
Essentially the Mental Health Act is the strong-arm of the Mental Health/Hospital system in my country...and its certainly not uncommon amongst most other countries also whereby if someone is deemed to be *unwell* and/or poses a significant threat (be it real or potential) of harm to self or others...then boom, people like me (Snr Psych Nurse/Duly Authorised Officer) can basically sign off some paperwork, give the Police a call and have you detained and transported to the nearest Psych Unit for further assessment/commital/treatment.


Here is where it starts to get dodgy.

The Mental Health Act is NOT intended to detain. It is NOT intended to forcibly remove another citizen from their fundamental rights. It is NOT intended to be a long term action - rather its principle intention is to assist at a time when perhaps 'assistance' is not wanted by the person...and really - despite the very real weighty power it allows - be as 'less intrusive upon the person' as possible for the shortest possible length of time.

That is the intention.

However - how it is actioned is variable, and variable upon the Clinicians actioning it.
For some of us we do only utilise the MHA in situations of very real and imminent danger, and then ONLY for the extent that danger can be mitigated in other forms less restrictive and invasive upon the person.
For other Clinicians however its welded like a sword. Its power, intention and wording within it is 'bent', sometimes outright broken, and it becomes a vehicle of extreme disempowerment of the person.

Someone under the MHA both does AND doesn't have a right to refuse treatment.
They do have a *right* to say "Heck no I don't give my permission for you to inject me with that IMI".
The reality however is that refusal is noted, and where deemed necessary the person can actually be restrained and the medication administered.

So really the only *true* choice that exists is around HOW the medication is administered - either willingly or unwilling, as when under the MHA the final choice doesn't rest with the person, it rests with the responsible Clinician.


...that said...and while I do acknowledge that Mental Health is somewhat different, the over-riding fundamental ideology of doing something perhaps unwanted by the person for their own good and/or for the good of others most certainly already exists.
Not only does it exist, but also seems to be reasonably welcomed by the wider community.
Perhaps thats somewhat based upon the perceptions and stigmatisation of people experiencing any form of unwellness/Mental Illness.
Often do I hear people say things like "Unwell people should be treated." or "They need to be in hospital" or "They pose too much of a risk to themselves and to others if they are allowed to wander around untreated" etc etc.
The wider public actually seem to support the idea of the MHA, support the idea of basically removing and remedying a perceived threat to society.

Its that type of thinking where I see the similarity - and the possible opening - with these types of Acts/Laws around physical health.
Thin edge of the wedge and all that...

The MHA could be seen as somewhat of a precedent already that could be transferred over to forced detention and treatment of a country's citizens.


So when I hear/read people say things like "That will never happen" or "Thats just wrong, how can that pass?" well...the processes are already there.
It already is in other sectors of health/society.
And at least in my country has been for the last 17 years (since its last revision anyway).



Peace.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^