It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sokpuppet
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
Yup - you are right - I just hate it that them baddies stopped polio! My family was in the wheelchair, steel crutches and coffin business, and that damn Jonas Salk and his NWO/Alien/Black Helicopter buddies done killed our sales!
I have a feeling you have your Reynolds wrap chapaeu already firmly affixed to your gourd and firmly grounded to repel any probes - however, I don't think you have taken the most important step that most people forget - electical outlet sockets! The PTB have control of every electrical connection on the grid, and guess where those copper wires behind the outlets in your house/apartment/hovel run? Yup, the are tied right into that same grid, giving those "people" (or whatever their reptilian form is today) a direct route to your personal space. You may need to sever the wiring itself, but I understand many people that know the truth just take a nice strong bar-b-que fork and jam it right in the outlet itself. Hold on tight, and all be be well.
is incorrect. The law does not say this.
This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.
Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Soooo.... when do we just start acting out? Because apparently that's what it's gonna take... Protests do nothing.. THIS, this is riot worthy. Combined with the FDA tryna ban supplemental vitamins, this is burn something down worthy....
Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by predator0187
Why are they so damn desperate for all kids to get this particular vaccine?
Consent to surgical or medical treatment, who may give, when.
4) Any minor for himself in case of:
(a) Pregnancy, but excluding abortions;
(b) Venereal disease;
(c) Drug or substance abuse including those referred to in chapter 195;
Sec. 4. Sexually transmitted disease; drug or alcohol abuse. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with any sexually transmitted disease, or may be determined to be an addict, an alcoholic or an intoxicated person, as defined in the Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act, or who may have a family member who abuses drugs or alcohol, may give consent to the furnishing of medical care or counseling related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. Each incident of sexually transmitted disease shall be reported to the State Department of Public Health or the local board of health in accordance with regulations adopted under statute or ordinance. The consent of the parent, parents, or legal guardian of a minor shall not be necessary to authorize medical care or counseling related to the diagnosis or treatment of sexually transmitted disease or drug use or alcohol consumption by the minor or the effects on the minor of drug or alcohol abuse by a member of the minor's family. The consent of the minor shall be valid and binding as if the minor had achieved his or her majority. The consent shall not be voidable nor subject to later disaffirmance because of minority.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dasher
The law does not remove parental rights. It provides a means whereby minors can receive medical treatment when their parents are unavailable to give consent. The law concerns a runaway or an abandonment situation. Do you think it better that the minor in these circumstances not be allowed treatment? What's the alternative? I suppose that instead of the child being allowed to provide consent, they could be made into a ward of the state. In which case the state could determine treatment. Is that a better solution? How should the "natural order" be invoked here when it is already broken?
Originally posted by predator0187
The state of California has just passed bill AB499, which will permit minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent. This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.
At issue, of course, is whether 12-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives to STD prevention, such as abstinence. Meanwhile, a child could suffer a vaccine reaction and the parent, not knowing the child had been vaccinated, could mistake it for the flu or another condition, delaying getting help until it is too late.
Well this is just crazy. If they are considered minors and do not have the ability to vote then they should not be getting vaccinations without parental consent.
At 12, no child understand the benefits or drawbacks of getting certain vaccinations.
This is getting crazier and crazier by the day...
Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I'm just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it's got to be in the Sabin's vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.
Read full interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman who worked on Gardasil that contends the Merck vaccine tainted with SV40 among other viruses
Gosh that Gardisil vaccine is a dangerous one. To try and have school officials vaccinate the children with it (against their parents' wishes) is sick!