It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Forcing a person to get a flu shot is no different than assult and battery!!!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by davjan4
The OP is right. It is battery.

In nursing school, we area all taught that so much as touching a patient without their permission is battery.

For all those that say we should get it: flu shots don't work. This has been proven more than once. Here is the latest:

I will never submit to flu-shot/gunpoint medicine. They will be forced to fire me.
edit on 13-1-2013 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)

Very nice, I especially liked the following quote from your link in the comments section and nice to see so many people taking notice of this.:

Freewomen, do not recognize the authority of The World Health
Organization (WHO) to mandate general forced vaccinations. Our bodies
are sovereign territory and subject to our exclusive self-determination.
Any attempted violation of this trust must be construed as a breach of
said basic right. We are thus holding our elected Governments
accountable in this defense with an issuance of notice: a preemptive
Class Action Lawsuit to be served in the event our inalienable rights to
choose are forsaken.

Zie verder :

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:13 PM
I would have a problem if they told me i needed to put something in my blood stream for something as trivial as the flu.

its the flipping flu....

edit on 13-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Labrat3162
I'm important.(In my world.). And my profit is measured in terms of health and wellbeing. Quality of life. Not just now but in the long term future. So I choose not to vaccinate.

Let those that choose to vaccinate, vaccinate.

I don't even mind paying for their care when they lose their faculties earlier in life, whether it can be linked to their personal choices throughout life or not, (Yes I'm talking about vaccinations, though I'm not allowed to make the link as no long term studies have been undertaken to prove/disprove that last statement
) because let's face it. I don't have a choice. I don't get to choose whether I should pay for medical care needed by people who have made bad personal choices.

Let those that choose not to vaccinate have that choice.

After all the pro-vaccinators are taking their shots and are protecting themselves from the diseases non-vaccinators are spreading. (And if they're right, sureley they're protecting the non-vaccinated at the same time by stopping the infection getting to non-vaccinated people by forming a human firewall

So what's their beef with the non-vaccinators? Maybe they just can't handle the notion that some people are making a choice they don't agree with and because disease is the subject they're scared to death they themselves have got it wrong and have detrimentally effected their short/long term health and will suffer debilitating and quite often long, drawn out, painful deaths later in life?

Your health is your greatest asset.
Your health is your responsibility.
Do not waive the decision making to the state. The state has very little vested interest in you. You are probably the only one that rates you so highly.

Absolutely. I choose not to get vaccinated. Haven't in years. People get sick, vaccinated or not. Personally I prefer to let my environment, and others around me help my body work it out. Also, exercise certainly helps.

edit on 13-1-2013 by mehefit because: edit

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
What I don't understand is, if someone uses force to invade your country, it is acceptable to use force in return and kill them. If someone uses force to invade your bloodstream, it is apparently unacceptable to use force to defend it.

At least the pharmaceutical companies should take 100% responsibility for what their product does to you. If they want to use force to put something in my blood, at least compensate me if something goes wrong. I'm not your science experiment.

They do. They pay an excise tax on every vaccine, and if you think you were harmed by a vaccine, the NVICP may award you money. (And it should be noted that the pharmaceutical companies funding the NVICP are not using force to put anything into your blood. I don't think anyone is.)

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
What I don't understand is, if someone uses force to invade your country, it is acceptable to use force in return and kill them. If someone uses force to invade your bloodstream, it is apparently unacceptable to use force to defend it.

At least the pharmaceutical companies should take 100% responsibility for what their product does to you. If they want to use force to put something in my blood, at least compensate me if something goes wrong. I'm not your science experiment.

They do. They pay an excise tax on every vaccine, and if you think you were harmed by a vaccine, the NVICP may award you money. (And it should be noted that the pharmaceutical companies funding the NVICP are not using force to put anything into your blood. I don't think anyone is.)

No for now I think the correct term is cohercion rather than force. But as the slope continues to slide it seems clear to me eventually at some point (if citizens don't rise up and say ENOUGH )sooner than later this choice in this matter will be all but gone and you will in reality be FORCED to make the 'choice' between taking the forced injections or STARVING. Some 'choice.' I really don't think it's wise to allow it to ever reach that kind of an impasse.

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by juleol

There is at most 52 micrograms of mercury in a can of tuna.
vaccines for hepititis B contain 12 micrograms of mercury.
TUNA CAUSES AUTISM!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

And this come from somebody that can't even use a spell checker.
Wertgurf, provide your source and links.
The EPA states that contamination is measured at 2ppb (that's 2 parts per Billion).

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by Violater1

Id rather you go look for yourself and then watch you edit your post

like you always do... its almost a waste of time to reply untill a day later.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by jaws1975

They do prove they are safe! It's just people ignore the countless studies, and only look at the severely flawed studies that are floating around the web.

They prove they are safe because the study's are funded by the vaccination makers. Didn't you know big pharma regulates itself?

I think you should read this thread if you haven't yet very informative of what's really going on here

Actually there are many independent studies on vaccines.

and the only proof in that thread is to a link by natural news. Natural News is a very poor source of information. Every single article I've ever read by them manipulates data, or outright lies.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:25 AM
I'm actually someone who was forced to get the flu shot this year. Prior to this year, I hadn't gotten the flu shot in 5 years.
I noticed absolutely no side effects from it, and I was paying close attention to possible effects.
I'm smarter than ever according to objective measurements.

While it's possible vaccines are being used as a money making scheme, or have some other nefarious purpose, the purported claims don't make any logical sense. I've already brought up the flaw in logic in this thread, and people just ignore it......
Why would they poison the people that obey them? They would want to poison the people that DON'T take the shot....
It's logic.

edit on 14-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:57 AM
I am curious about how long it has been that vaccines have been mandatory for the medical profession. It seems like common sense to me. If it has been required for a long time than those in the medical profession do not have a valid argument on that bases. I knew when I joined the military I would get vaccinated in my opinion there is no difference.

On the matter of establishments that do not require this of their staff I believe those places should be made to make it public knowledge that they do not. Those establishments are the ones that I will stay clear off including my family and if they are government subsidized then those who do not wish to participate should find employment elsewhere. These statements should be common sense for most but you know how that saying goes.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:01 AM
I always get the flu shot because I have asthma, severe allergies, and live with someone for whom I provide medical care occasionally and have to stay as healthy as possible. If I catch the flu, I get severely ill, sometimes for upwards of three months due to secondary infections. I've also had the pneumonia shot, and receive whatever the adult equivalent of DPT is every ten years. I have never suffered deleterious effects from vaccination other than the usual lethargy, headache, and low grade fever for a week or so. And I think that there is at least sufficient evidence to suggest that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks. But that's my opinion, and is not the point.

I get these vaccines because I choose to. I do not advocate or agree with forced vaccinations. Nor would, in my opinion, much of the medical community. If you go in for a routine checkup and are offered a flu shot, and you refuse, your physician can't force you to get one. This is because informed consent is one of the bedrocks of medical ethics. I doubt that many physicians - at least those true to their oath and concerned with ethics - would agree with employer intimidation forcing patients to receive vaccination in a manner that is for all intents and purposes against their will, unless they have alternative employment lined up. Of course, most physicians would also likely urge you to get the vaccine because whether you agree with them or not they believe that the benefits outweigh the risks... but they certainly wouldn't (and couldn't legally or ethically) force you to do so.

Yes, employers are within their legal rights to insist that employees be vaccinated. No, technically, legally, you are not having your legal rights violated by your employer doing so. (Just as you aren't technically, legally having your rights violated by being searched at the airport because it's private property and you have the option to not board the flight and find other travel arrangements.)

But there is the law, and then there is personal opinion, belief, morality, and sentiment.

... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

- Thomas Jefferson, emphasis added. (This quote applies to a lot of things we see today, not just this issue, in my view.)

My personal opinion, moral belief, and sentiment is that this is ethically wrong. I respect everyone else's right to differ, however I feel that this is a grave injustice to personal, bodily freedom. I know and understand why others don't feel that way. I do not agree with those individuals and groups however, as is my prerogative.

Not much else I can say or do.

edit on 1/14/2013 by AceWombat04 because: Added Jefferson quote.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:56 AM
Do we know if the nurses signed a contract stating that getting vaccinated was a condition of employment?
If so, the nurses likely don't have much ground for dispute.
I was curious of Indiana is an 'at-will' employment state. This is what I found:

Indiana House Amendment

Section 3 states that "the common law doctrine of at will employment is abrogated in Indiana." Ergo, the employer must have just cause for termination.

Now, I don't know for certain if the amendment passed, I am having some trouble finding that information, but if it did, it would have taken effect around 2002-3. Digging a bit through the Indiana Code, I didn't see this amendment listed, so I think it's unlikely that it passed.
That being the case, the employer could terminate the nurses employment arguing that they are there at-will. Basically, you can be fired or quit for any reason at any time, except in cases explicitly against the law such as certain types of descrimination, etc.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Ghost375
Why would they poison the people that obey them? They would want to poison the people that DON'T take the shot....
It's logic.

edit on 14-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

1. Because of population control.......There will always be a young whipper snappers to graduate and take the job who has been brainwashed for years, and will WITHOUT hesitation take whatever the employer demands.

Older wiser nurses with experience are not wanted anymore! They want blind followers, not anyone who UNDERSTANDS what AUTONOMY of PROFESSION MEANS!!!

2. Because the employer (CEO) ALSO follows others through COHERSION from BIG PHARMA who sleeps with hospitals!!!!!

Also the issue with masks are that you MUST be fitted for size and do testing to make sure it will COMPLY with N95 Specs. Then you MUST wear what the HOSPITAL BUYS! Trust me, to just wear one that actually fits is okay if you are non-ambulatory and just watching TV.. BUT to actually be working your butt off and sweating, those masks will make you pass out! So far, all my co-workers have taken the shot.

What people do not understand IS>>>>HOSPITALS ARE BUSINESSES FIRST!!!!!!!!!!! PROFITS PEOPLE!!!

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:25 AM
So much time and energy wasted by being irrationally paranoid about so many different things.

Amazing to see natural selection at work right infront of my eyes...

Ask smallpox about vaccinations.........oh wait...

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:22 AM
As a nurse this is how I feel about it. If you or your family member is afraid of contacting the flu bug then you should get yourself vaccinated. Why do people feel that the nurse responsibility is to get vaccinated even if they don't want too? Some of us have our own reasons. You have that right to get vaccinated yourself! Then you have no worries right? Also how can a nurse pass the flu bug around to her coworkers if they have been vaccinated? Yes the flu vaccination can not help with all strains and some still get it anyway. I feel everyone should have the choice if they want to get vaccinated. As a nurse we come in contact with a lot more deadly diseases then the flu. I personally have a very good immune system and I am never get sick but the one and only time I took the flu shot, I got sick. That month I was deathly sick twice that month. I did not get the flu but I felt like it compromised my immune system. Yes as a nurse I work with other people who get the flu and I follow precautions as we are always taught. If you look at the bigger picture, even if all nurses were vaccinated there would still be visitors, other patients and possibly your roommate who might not be vaccinated and they could touch something right before you did and spread the virus. So if anyone feel so strongly about the vaccination then I feel its their responsibility to get vaccinated.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:28 AM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Violater1

In a broader scope, it is a central authority dictating to the individual.

You WILL get the shot.
You WILL obey.

What happened to our free society?


your sickness infringes on my right to keep me and my family safe from it....what next? no more polio shots? no more MMR shots for your kids that go to school with my kids? no more government controlled clean drinking water, because it infringes on your right to drink any type of water you want? where does it stop?

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by peaceanhope

As a nurse you should also know it's about reducing the risk of infection, not eliminating it completely.

And if by taking the vaccination you're reducing the risk of spreading an infection to the already ill patients that you're there to help recover, shouldn't it be compulsory?

Wouldn't refusing to have such a vaccination be incredibly irresponsible?

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by Violater1

How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

As you read this work, and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget, because they are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

1. No one, nowhere, no time, and under no circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with "assault with a deadly weapon" and have the full resources of our laws behind you.

2. At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I
In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage to be gained, by antagonizing them. Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them. The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2
All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment. How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages. Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law. However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, "Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger."
Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.

Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3
While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

1. Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed, either on religious or medical grounds or both.

2. You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization law in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4
There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions. We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.
In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall. The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are "the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child" and "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.
It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

Article 5
Most people will be best served by a religious exemption unless the state law is so restrictive as to make this nearly impossible to obtain. The only church that is legally opposed to vaccination is the Christian Science Church. They took the matter to the courts and obtained a legal ruling of exemption. It is because of this that state laws recognize the religious exemption.
Another church, The Church of Illumination is also by its tenets opposed to immunization for its adherents, and they are encouraged to go to jail if necessary before submitting to this procedure. Since it is a "Church at Large," they are able to enroll members throughout the entire United States and would be pleased to consider any applicant who is without present church affiliation and who desires the legitimate support of others in his convictions.
In some states an official letter from a church authority is required before exemption will be given; in others, it is only necessary to submit a notarized letter that you ADHERE to religious tenets which hold vaccination against God's laws. All officialdom becomes a little shaky when you mention religious freedom, as it is one of our basic American rights and no one wants to be made the "heavy" in denying anyone religious freedom.
The general desire of most health officials is to exert as much control as possible, while assuming as little responsibility as possible. If you place them in a position in which they must either give you a waiver or assume additional responsibility, you will usually get your waiver.

Rule No. 5: Waivers can usually be obtained by a letter from a church official certifying that you are a member of a church that recommends against immunizations for its adherents. Many states will also allow exemption on religious grounds if you send them a notarized letter stating that you ADHERE to the beliefs of such a church, even if you are not an official member.

Article 6
The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes, all branches of the Service provide "immunization waivers." Again, if they did not, you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions you become responsible if you react.
When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you. If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 6: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding the facts of the law.

Article 7
What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination?

The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the "go" (at his discretion). Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots - so may you if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have travel led over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, however, "No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical."

Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.
edit on 1/14/2013 by chrisb9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Violater1

I agree to a point. What is it when you have the flu and you expose me to your illness knowing you are infectious. I guess since it cannot not be tied directly to you it is OK or you get a free pass. NO. Go get a flu shot so I do not have to fund medicaid even more to pay for your health care.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:58 PM
Your statement seems reasonable.

But if a bad strain appears, you will voluntarily withdraw yourself from the public and stay at home. Not for you own protection, but so you don't spread it to others.

In addition, should you get the flu, you are not allowed to get any medical help from the government but you can seek help from any other long as you don't leave home.

I'm not saying this is a good alternative, but if you want something, (or this case don't want something) sometimes you have to live with the consequences.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in