Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. government panel now pushing "vaccinations for all!" No exceptions…

page: 10
85
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by highlyoriginal

If this is even allowed to be talked about we have a major issue. If you disagree then I feel bad for you.

[edit on 29/6/2010 by highlyoriginal]


Wow, so doctors aren't even allowed to talk about their opinion that people might want to get the flu vaccine, but it's not required?

I didn't realize my MD negated my first amendment rights. I love that people who are screaming about the government taking away their freedoms are often the first to take freedoms away from others. A perfect circle.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I actually find this interesting. The reactions more than anything. How many people saying they'll never allow this have kids in public school? THen you've already experienced the mandatory vaccination laws. There are no laws requiring adults to have vaccinations, outside of the military.

I'm not a fan of the flu shot. I'm better with it now that it isn't a live virus. I remember the only time I got the flu was when i was vaccinated with the live virus.

But if you have kids in public school then they were vaccinated. So it's ok for polio. diptheria and pertussis but not the flu? Actually some states already require flu shots for public school admission.

The disclaimer on the nasal vaccine is "for use in healthy people ages 2-49 who are not pregnant". THis is because it's a live virus and gives you th flu. There is no disclaimer on the shot because it's a dead virus and can't give you the flu.

Look, vaccinations have done some great things for the world. Polio. Measles. Smallpox.

But the simple fact is all they have to do is incorporate it into the school laws. And if you want your child to have a public education then he'll get the shots. Hell that's been going on for years.

I have mixed emotions about it. I'll use a hypothetical situation. Say there is an Ebola epidemic. Like Polio, eliminating person to person transmission is the most important step in eradicating the virus. Ebola is 90% fatal. The government develops a vaccine for it. Should they make it mandatory? Because if a good portion of the population doesn't get it then there would be a good chance of an outbreak later on putting our kids in danger. So should it be mandatory>

If I was in power, and I felt you not being vaccinated or your children not being vaccinated put my family at risk, and the rest of the country at risk then I would make the vaccination mandatory. My child shouldn't suffer because you have some kind of hangup on the vaccination. I see many parents who don't get their kids vaccinated when they should and they wind up losing them to an easily preventable disease.

So I think there are some circumstances where the govt should be able to force vaccinations. But I also think that that power has the potential to be abused. But vaccinations have done far more good than harm. I think it needs to be left to the states in most circumstances. I also think that new vaccinations should undergo more thorough testing. There should also be a private(as in non govt) review of the vaccine safety. There needs to be extreme transparency. I'd also prefer to see testing on the prison population rather than the way they tested kids with the polio vaccine.

Laws are a lot like guns. Guns themselves aren't inherently dangerous. It's the wielder of the gun that makes it a deadly murder weapon or a method of defense. Same as the ability to force administration of vaccines. In the hands of the right person it could save the people of this country and in the wrong hands the possibilitties are endless.

Just heard an ad for www.adultvaccinations.com. I wonder if that ad is a result of the panel's advice?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
1) The girl who developed dystonia was later shown to be a fraud.
Dystonia Hoax


For all the whining you do about my choice of sources (go figure that would be your line of attack -- you don't deserve to be a medical professional and the fact that you are is one of the reasons I have no faith in your society anymore) your own source here is weak and doesn't prove a damned thing. It's a smear on a diseased girl who may very well HAVE been misdiagnosed while suffering from mercury poisoning or anything else known to be in those vaccines that are simultaneously known to be TOXIC. Maybe they failed to teach you during your education (wherever the hell you supposedly received one)


Ad hominem attacks...


If you want to smear this poor girl, a high school cheerleader for whom it would make no sense to stagger around as if crippled, by saying she really has no problems and is faking this whole thing


And Appeal to Pity.

Any more logical fallacies or debate tricks you care to employ? Or will you start citing legitimate sources?

It would help if you and your ilk knew there was a difference between and methylmercury and ethylmercury, the latter of which is the metabolite of Thimerosol. For example, methylmercury will accumulate in your body (hence, toxicity) while ethylmercury does not bioaccumulate and is passed with the rest of the body's waste.

Think "ethyl alcohol" and "methyl alcohol." It's like saying "Drinking wood alcohol will make you blind, so Vodka will blind you as well."



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 


I agree with what you say, except for the fact that mandatory vaccination sets legal precedence for government ownership of individuals. If the decision about what you do with your own body is not left ultimately up to you, then you are by all legal definitions property of whoever does make those decisions.

I understand protecting your family and children from outbreaks of disease, but ultimately by vaccinating yourself and your family you are protecting yourself just as well as you have been for the past 50 years. There are no pandemics breaking out every year or even every other year, so why take away the free will of a man to do with his body as he sees fit?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I hope these frackers understand one thing - I will be injecting magazine after magazine of hot lead into them before they inject me with even 1 shot of their poison!


That being said, his highnesses new healthcare bill will probably require everyone to receive this crap in order to be insured.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Wow, so doctors aren't even allowed to talk about their opinion that people might want to get the flu vaccine, but it's not required?

I didn't realize my MD negated my first amendment rights. I love that people who are screaming about the government taking away their freedoms are often the first to take freedoms away from others. A perfect circle.


When did I say that you can't take advice from your doctor? I'm talking generally here about being forced to take ANY sort of vaccination.

You really went out of your way to twist everything you quoted me on to make it fit what you had to say in response.

I believe our bodies are our own - someone can try to enslave our bodies all they want but I will fight to the death if I must to protect myself and my loved ones. If you want to listen to your doctor, go right ahead, I have no problem with that. But be aware that doctors are persuaded to tell people things by the corporations and big pharma. Now I'm not saying every doctor has been bought, but if you haven't realized there are some doctors out there that do not have their patients best interest in mind overall.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


Wow, way to dodge around your own words. For everyone else reading the thread, here is the quote I was responding to in HighlyOriginal's post:


If this is even allowed to be talked about we have a major issue. If you disagree then I feel bad for you.


HighlyOriginal feels that is should not be allowed for doctors to even TALK about vaccination schedules and patient recommendations. He feels "bad for you" if you think that the first amendment applies to the doctors at the CDC, or any doctor with an opinion on vaccination, for that matter.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Now it's becoming clear why big pharma was backing Obamacare. I can't believe I didn't see this before. Think about it this way - you really need a lot of money so one of your friends loans it to you. Suddenly that friend has a great deal of leeway in asking you to do favors for them, or they think they do. In addition to you owing them money, you feel obligated to say yes to their requests because they were nice enough to loan you the money. And the ball twisting gets tighter, and tighter. Now think about Obamacare. Suddenly all of these people who didn't have health insurance do, thanks to the U.S. Government. Low income families will get vouchers and credits toward their insurance costs. But now that this is paid for by Uncle Sam, the government starts in with the "favors". First it's mandatory vaccinations. Next it will be mandatory drugs or drug screenings and psyche evaluations. Because this is all paid for by the government, those of you receiving government help to get on health insurance suddenly feel like you owe it to your purse strings masters, so you will get the vaccinations they say you will get.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


I gave many different sources across multiple posts. Your problem is not with the sources, it's a psychological problem of denial because your worldview is too skewed and weak to integrate all of this information. So your automatic knee-jerk reaction is to say they're all nonsense, and how easy is that to do? Too easy.

Besides the DailyMail, which I have already shown reports mainstream news articles, I posted these:

www.thenewamerican.com...
articles.mercola.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
www.thisislondon.co.uk...

The reasons you should believe these sources are all lying and making the same things up together? Because I think you are talking out of your ass.

That's four different, independent sources sharing the same information, two from the UK and two from the US. I guess they're just all nonsense tabloids just because you don't like that they host these articles, nevermind that everything else they host is mainstream news.


And do you have any response to the fact that MSM is equally vague when citing their own "senior officials" and other "sources"? No, you don't, but you'd accept the same from those sources, because you're a hypocrite, and you don't even know where your head is.

If you weren't so lazy, you could do your own search and find even more sources stating the same things. Do you even try? I'm not even there watching you, and I know for a fact, NO, you didn't even try to verify this information, BECAUSE YOU HAD ALREADY COME TO YOUR IGNORANT CONCLUSION, --BEFORE-- YOU EVEN SAW --ANY-- OF THIS, AND YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING YOUR MIND FOR --ANY-- REASON!!



All I want to ask you at this point, is, are you slobs still going to be here in a year or two so I can come back and say "I told you so!"?

When they bring back talk of quarantining people during an "epidemic," and mandatory vaccinations in various areas, I'm coming right back to this thread and rubbing it in your dumb faces. You are the people who NEVER GET IT and are the whole reason this society is such a mess today in the first place!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


You want to talk about Thiomersal? No, you don't really, you just want to snap your easy mouth at the people who tell you things you don't like reading.



Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[9] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[3]

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities.[10] Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults.[11] A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination with thiomersal-containing vaccines averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.[12] Ethylmercury clears from the brain in about 14 days in infant monkeys. Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.[11]

Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.[11] Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body.[13] Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[11]


en.wikipedia.org...


And before your smart aleck fingers start criticizing Wikipedia, let me teach you something about Wikipedia. Do you see those numbers in brackets ( [ ] )? Those numbers are associated with numbered footnotes that provide the sources for preceding statement.

Just in case you're particularly blind and can't read the above paragraph, maybe these links will catch your attention:

"Safety data sheet, Thiomersal Ph Eur, BP, USP"

The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds

"Mercury levels in newborns and infants after receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines"

"Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body"


You might also want to note that while they are discussing the times it takes to clear out of the body, they are still talking on the order of days in plural just for the HALF LIFE of the substances, and it still IS TOXIC.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by AquariusDescending]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
...if you want your child to have a public education then he'll get the shots. Hell that's been going on for years.

I have mixed emotions about it. I'll use a hypothetical situation. Say there is an Ebola epidemic. Like Polio, eliminating person to person transmission is the most important step in eradicating the virus. Ebola is 90% fatal. The government develops a vaccine for it. Should they make it mandatory? Because if a good portion of the population doesn't get it then there would be a good chance of an outbreak later on putting our kids in danger. So should it be mandatory>

If I was in power, and I felt you not being vaccinated or your children not being vaccinated put my family at risk, and the rest of the country at risk then I would make the vaccination mandatory. My child shouldn't suffer because you have some kind of hangup on the vaccination. I see many parents who don't get their kids vaccinated when they should and they wind up losing them to an easily preventable disease...

But I also think that that power has the potential to be abused. But vaccinations have done far more good than harm. I think it needs to be left to the states in most circumstances. I also think that new vaccinations should undergo more thorough testing. There should also be a private(as in non govt) review of the vaccine safety. There needs to be extreme transparency. I'd also prefer to see testing on the prison population rather than the way they tested kids with the polio vaccine.

Laws are a lot like guns. Guns themselves aren't inherently dangerous. It's the wielder of the gun that makes it a deadly murder weapon or a method of defense. Same as the ability to force administration of vaccines. In the hands of the right person it could save the people of this country and in the wrong hands the possibilitties are endless...


Greetings DrJay, you certainly seem able to live up to being the "voice of reason" with this post. I hope others can appreciate your comprehensive approach, you raised many important points.

First, I completely agree with what you said as you concluded your post. Yes, laws can be bad news, in the wrong hands. I would submit that this is precisely the situation. In the hands of the government, the "possibilities are endless"...well stated.

Back on page 4 of this thread, I felt it was important to highlight the fact that the government has an incredibly bad track record. It's so bad, the rest of the discussion could probably be legitimately considered moot.

However, you raised a very important issue that I wouldn't want to pass by too quickly. What if there was an Ebola or other super-deadly outbreak? What would people actually DO in such a crisis? If I was to guess, I would say that a large number of people would voluntarily take whatever the government provided, if only for a chance at surviving.

A bit more extreme than just trying to get free education for the kids, but it is where I can easily imagine the masses lining up for "whatever it is".

I also agree with your intuition about what a person might do, if they had the power. Of course we can imagine lots of scenarios where someone in power would not hesitate to do whatever it took, to deal with a seemingly imminent threat (from whatever quarter). These are rational considerations, regardless of how one feels about vaccinations.

And now, what about our government? Obviously, this is the point where people will tend to go to one side or the other, and from some of the posts I'm seeing, many do in fact still trust their government.

But I would suggest going beyond our present feelings, and really investigating what our government has already done, in order to form a more rational basis for trying to guess at what they might do in the future.

From my conspiratorial perspective, the "gun" would be firmly in the hands of a psychopath.

JR



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I hope the following continues to help paint a more accurate picture of what our government is capable of. It is important to consider, since the issue of vaccinations inherently involves "trust". It is certainly implied, since anyone who accepts a vaccination trusts that it should do more good, than harm.

1951, Department of Defense monitors desert area residents who are downwind from open-air nuclear detonations, tracking medical problems, and mortality rates.

1953, US Military releases zinc cadmium sulfide gas over various cities, including st. Louis, Leesburg, VA, and even Winnipeg. The stated intent is to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed.

1953, In a follow-up experiment, both the Army and the Navy join forces, attacking San Francisco again, and now New York. Tens-of-thousands are exposed to airborne germs (Serratia marcescans and Bacillus glogigii).

1953, The CIA initiates project MKULTRA. Officially only lasting 11 years, drugs, biological agents, sexual torture, and more, are extensively studied in order to achieve mind control and behavior modification. By the nature of the program, unwitting subjects are preferred.

1955, The CIA releases biological agents created for warfare out of the Army's arsenal, over Tampa Bay, Florida.

1956, The US Military releases mosquitos infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Georgia, as well as Avon Park, Florida. Following each "test", Army agents posed as public health officials, gathering data first-hand from their victims.

Just go to page 4 of this thread, if you would like to see a few of the things our government was up to before the 1950's.

Maybe next time I'll get to the 1960's...

CAN WE TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT??

JR MacBeth



[edit on 29-6-2010 by JR MacBeth]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PayMeh
reply to post by jfj123
 


I bet you were one of the people touting last year how good Obamacare is going to be, how we'll have "free healthcare for everyone."

I bet you're one of THOSE who think it should be every man for themselves.....let the weak die.


There are lines in that bill that will lead to mandatory yearly physicals, taking your blood pressure, height, weight, and BMI.

Sounds interesting. Could you please post these lines from the bill? Thanks.


At this yearly physical, called an Annual Wellness Visit, it doesn't say screening practices and vaccinations will be recommended, it says they will be ESTABLISHED. IE - You will be told to go to the doctor and get the vaccines, prostate exam, mammogram, ect.

Cool ! Could you also post these lines from the bill?


Get your heads out of the sand please. There's not much room for misinterpretation in the wording of it. There's no way some of the wording can be made innocent.

If you'll notice, my comments are based on the article that was posted as a source for the entire basis of this thread.


If you think the census was bad,

I didn't. It hasn't much changed since created.


except they can show up at your door anytime, ask a LOT more questions, and force health measures upon you.

Interesting. Again, could you please post the specific lines in the bill that states this?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Th UNWHO and Baxter, Int'l. have been indicted in Austria for attempted genocide. The case is pending.
Three quarters of the swine-flu vaccine they were expecting was okay. The last fourth was bird-flu virus.
Documents obtained by Jane Burgermeister (an Austrian reporter who was temporarily put in hiding and under protection by the FBI) show the vaccine was manipulated over and over again to test different life-threatening reactions. (www.birdflu666.wordpress.com)
After the Bilderberg conference was crashed by Alex Jones and five or six others (all sharing one megaphone) the conference came to the conclusion it should pursue "a more gentle method of depopulation".

My favorite quote of the month comes from a woman participant of the conference in June. "How did they find out about US?"



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by yuefo
 


I agree with you, but I'd leave the country rather than go to jail. It's the microchip that I'm most afraid of. They will most certainly be micro chipping people in jails, and what if these vaccinations are a way to get a micro chip into you?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Why, I wonder, is all the focus and fears solely on the FLU virus? There are far more serious health problems to avoid that should be the bigger concern.

However, flu is the most common...and is an easier sell to the masses. Thus, make the fears of FLU PANDEMIC so great, that you can get the mindless boobs of the populace to line up for an injection of "Unknown Agents".

The thing I surmise is the issue here, is the insidious compromising of human immune systems. NEVER assume what the federal government tells you is good for your health, actually is...

I have a gnawing suspicion that what they are actually up to, is some sort of program to limit the human life span beyond 60 years. A population of nearly 9 billion and growing humans on the globe is not sustainable. Something has to be done about it. But what? Who has value to the overall "collective" and who is just an eel feeding off of the host for free? Those parameters are being decided now. Especially by the horror show we have in the White House now...

Guess who they will go after first? Your newborn babies and children! College students will be forced to comply. Then they will make it mandatory to employment. You will be injected yearly...for life. They will never tell you "What's in it".

The next rise of Socialism/Communism coupled with eugenics's is going to be a blood letting worse than Elizabeth Bathory could conjure... Pol Pot will look like Mother Teresa...

Forget about concentration camps or re-education. Instead you will be made to justify your existence. No more welfare or other freebies for the ignorant over-breeders...just extermination via a complimentary injection.

Once they disarm the nation via the usurpation of the Constitution by stacking the Supreme court with anti 2nd Amendment nominees, there will be no way to fight against or resist the Federal Goon Squads.

Currently they are chipping away at your liberties and freedoms bit by bit. Is this what you want?

The US government we have now is evil. It is totally anti constituent, and thinks that the public are ignorant morons to be manipulated like cattle in the stock yards at the slaughter houses. They will lie to your face to get elected, and then laugh at your concerns later. This we are witnessing daily at town hall meetings with our so called representatives...it is clear they have no respect for the voter.

So what is the answer? Clean house by getting rid of all current career politicians. Insist on term limits. Do not allow a lame duck congress or senate to ruin the nation out of spite by passing everything this Administration hopes for prior to January 2011. Get rid of rouge ( pro socialist/communist ) justices who think that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are outdated and open to debate, by any means necessary. Never again allow a collection of such capitalism and freedom haters as Obama and his Appointees in the Capital Building. Impeach or send B.O. packing in 2012.

Eat Healthily, Drink Water, get enough Rest, wash your hands regularly, avoid places with a high volume of people.. avoiding colds and flu. Never accept mandatory injections from any group on threat of repercussion.

Become a unabashed pro-freedom/rights defender. Learn the US Constitution, and the all the Amendments and what they mean. Be able to recite the Bill of Rights verbatim. If you hate America and the flag, then get the hell out of the country...we don't want you! If you have come here illegally, you are not a citizen and have no rights, so again, get the hell out of our country. Sell your sorry ass sob story to your own governments...you are not our problem to support with our taxes meant for US citizens. Want to be in the USA legitimately, then apply for immigration status legally. Nuff said!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sanity911
Sounds like it might be a good idea to develop an egg allergy. Just a thought...


I have one, and still was required to get several vaccines in order to transfer colleges this fall.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Someone else probably already beat me to this but maybe I missed something ?

Where exactly does it say "No Exceptions" ?

All I see is they recommend "Yearly" Vaccinations, kinda makes the threead title a bit misleading don't you think ?

That said its a great topic of discussion that I will read through.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   




The CDC doesn't make law, only recommendations.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Sorry, I think there's a whole lot of BS in this thread.

As a couple of other people have noted, the CDC will recommend vaccinations for everyone. They cannot use bodily force to make anyone take the vaccine - just as they cannot use bodily force to draw blood from anyone legally in the United States - and anyone who says that they have used bodily force to do this should have sued the pants off of the "agency" that did this to them - they would have won easily - if they didn't then shame on them, they should be too ashamed to mention it . They can only recommend.


Actually, in some very rare cases, they can use force to draw blood. Although, in the case o Odd1Out, there does not appear to be such a reason and he should have filed suit.

4th Amendment...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


Now, if they do pass a law or something (which is what would have to happen) that requires everyone to submit to the vaccine, then, yes, it will become an issue with me, and one I will not submit to, because they cannot do that legally and therefore, the law will be illegal and easily reversed.


Such a law would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional also under the 4th amendment.





new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join