Mandatory Flu Vaccinations for France?

ilivetolearn

Hi All,

I've stumbled across the following article by Kurt Nimmo (infowars):

SOURCE

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 31, 2009
The French government will spend nearly a billion euros on a mandatory flu vaccination this autumn, a French website reported on May 30. “France is preparing a battle plan without precedent for this autumn, including an obligatory vaccination campaign for all French of more than 3 months of age,” writes Marie-Christine Tabet for Le Journal du Dimanche. “According to our information, the State will place an order for 100 million units of influenza vaccine from three laboratories (GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and Novartis).” On May 15, Bloomberg reported that France, the UK, Belgium and Finland agreed to buy about 158 million shots from London-based Glaxo and Baxter International Inc.
According to the World Health Organization at the United Nations, production of up to 4.9 billion doses of a swine flu vaccine a year would be possible.
“A ‘pilot vaccine’ is being developed under the supervision of the EU. However, some conspiracy theories that are spreading just as fast as the virus have already dismissed the hysteria over the virus as a malevolent plot orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies in order to cash in on people’s fear. One in particular believes that the strain has been purposely engineered so companies producing vaccines can cash in,” Russia Today opined on May 1.
In February Baxter confirmed that it released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria. The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabeled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany, the Toronto Sun reported.
Anne Laude, co-director of the Institute of Health at the Université Paris Descartes, said “nobody would have the right, except in the case of a medical counter-indication, to refuse a vaccination.”
Last month the Obama administration announced it was considering whether to trigger mass production of swine-flu vaccine, which could affect the bottom lines of big vaccine makers as well as public health, according to the Wall Street Journal. Obama requested a $1.5 billion emergency appropriation to deal with swine flu, including development of a vaccine.
The Obama fall vaccination program, according to the Washington Post, would entail giving Americans three flu shots — one to combat annual seasonal influenza and two targeted at the H1N1 flu virus. “If enacted, the multibillion-dollar effort would represent the first time that top federal health officials have asked Americans to get more than one flu vaccine in a year, raising serious challenges concerning production, distribution and the ability to track potentially severe side effects.”
In 1976, following a small swine flu outbreak at the Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey, the federal government ordered a nationwide vaccination program. “Mass vaccinations started in October, but within weeks reports started coming in of people developing Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralyzing nerve disease, right after taking the shot. Within two months, 500 people were affected, and more than 30 died. Amid a rising uproar and growing public reluctance to risk the shot, federal officials abruptly canceled the program Dec. 16.,” writes Tony Long for Wired.
“The vaccine manufacturers had anticipated the potential for serious side effects from the vaccines they manufactured and had insisted on indemnification by the federal government before releasing pandemic vaccine. Harmed vaccinees and their families sued the federal government and eventually received millions of dollars in damages. Sencer was let go as CDC director. Many people faulted him for his dogged pursuit of universal influenza vaccination,” notes the Suburban Emergency Management Project.
During the swine flu hysteria earlier this year, the corporate media made the case for mass vaccination. “Time Magazine’s coverage of the swine flu scare has a noticeable subplot — preparing Americans for draconian measures to combat a future pandemic as well as forcing them to accept the idea of mandatory vaccinations,” wrote Paul Joseph Watson on April 28. According to Time, the government “may soon have to consider whether to institute draconian measures to combat the disease.”
New Jersey was the first state to require flu shots for young schoolchildren. “It was part of a new policy requiring a total of four additional immunizations for schoolchildren over the objections of some parents who worry about possible risks from vaccinations,” the New York Times reported on January 2, 2009. An advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that all children ages 6 months to 18 years should receive an annual flu shot.
Hundreds of concerned parents participated in demonstrations outside the New Jersey Statehouse on October 16, 2008, in protest of the State’s decision to mandate flu vaccinations for young children.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons considers mandatory vaccines a violation of the medical ethic of informed consent.

I could be stating the obvious here but doesn't it sound like there's quite a bit of money to be accrued should the vaccinations become mandatory. Does anyone believe in the possibility that the virus and future variations are the result of deliberate engineering as an ulterior ploy to drive up sales for the pharmaceutical industries? These guys and these guys certainly do. The most common theory I've encountered is concerned with depopulation.

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Hi All,

I've stumbled across the following article by Kurt Nimmo (infowars):

SOURCE





I could be stating the obvious here but it sounds like there's quite a bit of money to be accrued should the vaccinations become mandatory. Does anyone believe in the possibility that the virus and future variations are the result of deliberate engineering as an ulterior ploy to drive up sales for the pharmaceutical industries? These guys and these guys certainly do. The most common theory I've encountered is concerned with depopulation.

Wouldn't they get more money for the treatment of a flu than the prevention of one?

ilivetolearn

King Mob wrote: »

Wouldn't they get more money for the treatment of a flu than the prevention of one?

That's a valid point. In fact therein lies the roots of corruption for the industry at hand.

Well, that's profiteering shot down as primary reason. What are your thoughts on the depopulation camp?

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

That's a valid point. In fact therein lies the roots of corruption for the industry at hand.

Well, that's profiteering shot down as primary reason. What are your thoughts on the depopulation camp?

Again falls with the same logic.
If they wanted to depopulate the planet why release a virus then make a vaccine for it?

And in all these depopulation theories no one really explains the reason why They would want to do it in the first place.

ilivetolearn

King Mob wrote: »

If they wanted to depopulate the planet why release a virus then make a vaccine for it?

Two birds (profit + depopulation), one stone (virus) perhaps? :pac:

I'm not proposing that this is the case though it does attempt to answer your question.

King Mob wrote: »

And in all these depopulation theories no one really explains the reason why They would want to do it in the first place.

I've come across a neat synopsis in relation to this. Some might find it useful. Others may find it amusing. Such is life.

TOP TEN SWINE FLU CONSPIRACIES

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Two birds (profit + depopulation), one stone (virus) perhaps? :pac:

I'm not proposing that this is the case though it does attempt to answer your question.

If depopulation is the goal why force everyone to take a vaccine that would stop the depopulation?
If profit is the goal why develop a vaccine that wouldn't get as much profit as treating everyone for the virus you release?

It just doesn't make much sense.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I've come across a neat synopsis in relation to this. Some might find it useful. Others may find it amusing. Such is life.

TOP TEN SWINE FLU CONSPIRACIES

Not really. It doesn't explain how a mass depopulation would benefit anyone.

espinolman

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I could be stating the obvious here but doesn't it sound like there's quite a bit of money to be accrued should the vaccinations become mandatory. Does anyone believe in the possibility that the virus and future variations are the result of deliberate engineering as an ulterior ploy to drive up sales for the pharmaceutical industries? These guys and these guys certainly do. The most common theory I've encountered is concerned with depopulation.

Maybe they want them all to take the vaccinations because they don't want differences to be noticed .

bonkey

For anyone who reads French, I'd recommend checking out the original article.

It doesn't quite say what the infowars article suggests it does.

ilivetolearn

I think you're overlooking the possibility (no matter how slight) that both agendas (depopulate + profit) may be simultaneous rather then negating each other in an elementary sense.

King Mob wrote: »

If profit is the goal why develop a vaccine that wouldn't get as much profit as treating everyone for the virus you release?

What if 'they' (whoever they may be in this case) simply didn't need to aim as high as accruing profit from sustained treatment? What if the profit accrued from curing is sufficient? What if profiteering but a bonus and secondary agenda (depopulation being the primary)?

King Mob wrote: »

If depopulation is the goal why force everyone to take a vaccine that would stop the depopulation?

Aside form profit many theorists online have implied that vaccination is a medium for inflicting long term and at times lethal damage to the recipient (others have mentioned that its to desensitize the public to martial law type scenarios but we can touch on this later).

I've noticed you've mentioned 'everyone' in your question. Is it correct to assume that everyone in a global sense will have equal access to the vaccination? Perhaps the poorer areas of world will have limited access or a slower turnaround time resulting in a subsequent occurrence of depopulation in each instance.

King Mob wrote: »

It just doesn't make much sense.

Yes, it does. If you're limiting your cognitive processes to absolutes (e.g. your belief that one agenda negates the other rather than working in tandem) then it won't. The answers delivered thus far in response to King Mobs's queries represent the general online consensus for the conspiracy theory on the matter. In terms of my own beliefs I think yet again my logician and friend William of Ockham needs to be paid his due (Occam's Razor):

If depopulation is the goal why not eradicate the masses with a deadlier virus that isn't immediatley curable or treatable thus permitting a higher kill-off?
If profiteering is the goal why now execute a virus that has more of a propensity for treatment rather than cure?
If both depopulation and profit are simultaneous goals then why not aim higher? If both agendas exist then the current implementation will in contrast only return nominal profits and deaths.

Based on its overall inefficiency and a thumbs down from Occam's razor I can understand why many are mostly skeptical in response to this theory. Then again I'm sure that many enthusiasts will argue that the true overall efficiency remains to be seen since the implementation is in incrementing phases. They may also argue that the culprits (NWO etc.) rely on the theory being outlandish enough that it has no credibility with the general public and furthermore a thumbs down from Occam's Razor is more likely indicator of a valid conspiracy theory rather than an indicator of an implausible theory (even though this would be a case of evidence against the theory actually being for the theory).

I think its healthy to be able to look at this from the outposts of both camps. :pac:

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't explain how a mass depopulation would benefit anyone.

That it doesn't. An interesting read no less.

After reviewing your original question you asked why would 'they' want to do depopulate in the first place. I'm not sure I understand the question. Does the notion of depopulation not go hand in hand with most conventional NWO theories (FEMA, Georgia Guidestones etc.)?

If you meant to appraise the alleged correlation between the NWO and depopulation then begin your study here.

If you meant to appraise the alleged correlation between the Hybrid Virus and depopulation then begin your study here.

And for anyone feeling extra studious (which I admittedly am right now) you can appraise the alleged correlation between the NWO and the Hybrid Virus here.

ilivetolearn

ilivetolearn wrote: »

What if 'they' (whoever they may be in this case) simply didn't need to aim as high as accruing profit from sustained treatment? What if the profit accrued from curing is sufficient? What if profiteering but a bonus and secondary agenda (depopulation being the primary)?

Well if the profit for a vaccine is sufficient why bother making a virus at all?
A new vaccine would net that much profit. even if every single person on the planet paid $50 for one that's $300 billion. But from that you'd have to take development, distribution, storage charges, taxes, doctors fees and so on. And then on top of that you have to pay for the development of the new virus, the money to keep people quite, money to bribe researchers and the scientific journals who might find indications of an artificial virus, pay for a secret delivery system, monitoring the spread of the virus and so on.
Just doesn't seem worth it.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Aside form profit many theorists online have implied that vaccination is a medium for inflicting long term and at times lethal damage to the recipient (others have mentioned that its to desensitize the public to martial law type scenarios but we can touch on this later).

Well anti-vaccination nonsense is quite popular. Unfortunately there isn't a scrap of evidence to support it. And if they wanted to kill people off why use something like this when a good portion of people will not take vaccines? Why not just put something in the water supply.
I don't see how this is in anyway desensitising for martial law. It's exactly like saying forcing all children to go to school is to prepare them for martial law.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I've noticed you've mentioned 'everyone' in your question. Is it correct to assume that everyone in a global sense will have equal access to the vaccination? Perhaps the poorer areas of world will have limited access or a slower turnaround time resulting in a subsequent occurrence of depopulation in each instance.

That's a very good point. Many poorer nations won't have the high levels of vaccine that richer ones do.
But begs the question why would they want to kill off all these poorer countries.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Based on its overall inefficiency and a thumbs down from Occam's razor I can understand why many are mostly skeptical in response to this theory. Then again I'm sure that many enthusiasts will argue that the true overall efficiency remains to be seen since the implementation is in incrementing phases. They may also argue that the culprits (NWO etc.) rely on the theory being outlandish enough that it has no credibility with the general public and furthermore a thumbs down from Occam's Razor is more likely indicator of a valid conspiracy theory rather than an indicator of an implausible theory (even though this would be a case of evidence against the theory actually being for the theory).

That kinda smacks of "any evidence against a theory is evidence for a conspiracy" don't you think?

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I think its healthy to be able to look at this from the outposts of both camps. :pac:

Except the conspiracy camp has nothing to support it as usual.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

That it doesn't. An interesting read no less.

After reviewing your original question you asked why would 'they' want to do depopulate in the first place. I'm not sure I understand the question. Does the notion of depopulation not go hand in hand with most conventional NWO theories (FEMA, Georgia Guidestones etc.)?

It's a popular theory, but I still don't see the benefit. All it means is they're be alot of dead bodies around and noone to clean them up.

ilivetolearn wrote: »

If you meant to appraise the alleged correlation between the Hybrid Virus and depopulation then begin your study here.

And for anyone feeling extra studious (which I admittedly am right now) you can appraise the alleged correlation between the NWO and the Hybrid Virus here.

It's been discussed here before and noone could show any evidence at all that the swine flu was anything other than naturally occurring.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

For anyone who reads French, I'd recommend checking out the original article.

It doesn't quite say what the infowars article suggests it does.

What does it say exactly?

DTrotter

King Mob wrote: »

It's been discussed here before and noone could show any evidence at all that the swine flu was anything other than naturally occurring.

Come on, if deaths in the 100's isn't population control what is?

Undergod

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I've come across a neat synopsis in relation to this. Some might find it useful. Others may find it amusing. Such is life.

TOP TEN SWINE FLU CONSPIRACIES

Em. I know you said some might find it amusing, but that site is actually taking the piss and adds nothing to the discussion.

Surgical Mask Manufacturers.

tony 2 tone

DTrotter wrote: »

Come on, if deaths in the 100's isn't population control what is?

Hundreds out of how many though? Thousands? Millions? a few hundred out of a population of 109 million (for Mexico just for example) is hardly population control. A few hundred world wide out of 6.7 Billion plus, is not population control.

Were these old or young? Male or Female (or lizaaard :P) For it to be realistic population control it would make more sense to take out people of child baring age. This bracket of people would usually have a good immune system too.
The whole thing seems a bit flimsy.

DTrotter

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Hundreds out of how many though? Thousands? Millions? a few hundred out of a population of 109 million (for Mexico just for example) is hardly population control. A few hundred world wide out of 6.7 Billion plus, is not population control.

Were these old or young? Male or Female (or lizaaard :P) For it to be realistic population control it would make more sense to take out people of child baring age. This bracket of people would usually have a good immune system too.
The whole thing seems a bit flimsy.

They don't seem like a good New World Order do they? We should rename them Second Hand Municipal District Club.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

What does it say exactly?

It says that the French are ensuring that if there is a massive surge in Swine Flu cases in Autumn (i.e. the pattern that was seen with Spanish Flu in 1918), that they will be in a position to react quickly.

The strategy for combating such a massive surge would be the mandatory vaccination mentioned. In order to be able to have this plan, they need to have the vaccine...if they wait until there is such a massive increase of cases, then it will be too late to order it. So they will order the vaccine, an develop the plan, in order to have the option to implement the plan if the situation merits it.

It also mentions that the experts estimate that a 70% to 75% coverage of the population would be sufficient, meaning that the government wouldn't necessarily have to worry too much about particularly incalcitrant individuals / groups who refused vaccination.

Towards the end of the article, there is also mention that they recognise that such measures carry their own risks, and these would have to be weighed against the risks of not carrying out such a program in order to make any decision.

In other words, the content of the article suggests that the French are giving themselves the ability to rapidly react, up to and including mandatory vaccination, depending on what happens.

DTrotter

bonkey wrote: »

It says that the French are ensuring that if there is a massive surge in Swine Flu cases in Autumn (i.e. the pattern that was seen with Spanish Flu in 1918), that they will be in a position to react quickly.

The strategy for combating such a massive surge would be the mandatory vaccination mentioned. In order to be able to have this plan, they need to have the vaccine...if they wait until there is such a massive increase of cases, then it will be too late to order it. So they will order the vaccine, an develop the plan, in order to have the option to implement the plan if the situation merits it.

It also mentions that the experts estimate that a 70% to 75% coverage of the population would be sufficient, meaning that the government wouldn't necessarily have to worry too much about particularly incalcitrant individuals / groups who refused vaccination.

Towards the end of the article, there is also mention that they recognise that such measures carry their own risks, and these would have to be weighed against the risks of not carrying out such a program in order to make any decision.

In other words, the content of the article suggests that the French are giving themselves the ability to rapidly react, up to and including mandatory vaccination, depending on what happens.

And if they didn't have these guidelines it would be poulation control/culling.

ilivetolearn

bonkey wrote: »

It says that the French are ensuring that if there is a massive surge in Swine Flu cases in Autumn (i.e. the pattern that was seen with Spanish Flu in 1918), that they will be in a position to react quickly.

...

In other words, the content of the article suggests that the French are giving themselves the ability to rapidly react, up to and including mandatory vaccination, depending on what happens.

It's a lot more benign when put in the context of the source. These guys beg to differ (I'm not vouching for or against their claims. I'm simply presenting it as a third party point of view for discussion):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13835

Disky

bonkey wrote: »

For anyone who reads French, I'd recommend checking out the original article.

:rolleyes: http://translate.google.com/

I can also read a host of other languages.....

ilivetolearn

Disky wrote: »

:rolleyes: http://translate.google.com/

I can also read a host of other languages.....

Nice. I didn't know that Google had this feature.

Disky

I'll not accept any mandatory vaccination.

The "experts" are not your mates, and it looks increasingly likely that those "radicals" who refuse vaccination will be deemed enemies of the state.

ilivetolearn

Disky wrote: »

The "experts" are not your mates, and it looks increasingly likely that those "radicals" who refuse vaccination will be deemed enemies of the state.

I know. Clearly they must be as madcap and lethal to the state as veterans and protesters.

bonkey

Disky wrote: »

:rolleyes: http://translate.google.com/

I can also read a host of other languages.....

google translate (and other translation links) are useful to get "the gist" of what is being discussed. I generally find that they miss the finer detail.

That said...I accept your point, in that tehre's even less of an excuse for anyone to base their opinion off the infowars commentary of the article, rather than on the article's content.

ilivetolearn

bonkey wrote: »

...tehre's even less of an excuse for anyone to base their opinion off the infowars commentary...

Understood...

*reverts to the elevated alerts and further sentationalized coverage of the mainstream.

Actually, I digress. I'll stick with the lesser of two perceived evils warts and all.

Samba

If there is any hidden agenda, I think population control would be high priority...

If I was in Government in France and I had a plausible option to reduce anti-government/military/police sentiment along with constant rioting and striking...I'd be very temped. It's win win win from their POV.

Depopulation would only further enrage an already angered nation.

Run_to_da_hills

Looks like Flu pandemic may be happening according to the WHO, It may be more than France that might make Swine flu vaccinations manditory. :eek:


http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/15850729/

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/15850491/

tallaght01

In this day and age you won't get nurses and doctors to administer vaccines against people's will.

They would never work again, as they'd be ostracised by their colleagues. Even if they were happy to break their hippocratic oath, it would be the end of their careers.

thecommander

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It may be more than France that might make Swine flu vaccinations manditory.

But if you read the above you'll see that France weren't making it mandatory.