Mandatory Vaccinations VS Exemption

ilivetolearn · 03-08-2009 11:17pm #1

Hi All,

Subject: I've come across an interesting audio exchange in relation to exemptions from the upcoming H1N1 vaccinations if you have the time to listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msdj6HL-XRw

YOUTUBE LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msdj6HL-XRw

Summary: A concerned member of the public contacts the Arkansas Dept. of Health and Legal Council. The issue of exemption is raised though from what I've digested, the caller is concerned that he is only allowed to apply for exemption and that his fate is at the whims of whomever is responsible for screening the applicants. The representative suggests that mandatory vaccinations are constitutional. The caller further enquires how to protect himself after finding out that religious exemptions will not apply.

My thoughts: I think it's an interesting conversation though I'm not familiar enough with medical legislation to know whether the representative is correct or not. Greece have apparently just announced that they will enforce mandatory vaccinations to immunize its entire population of 12 million (source provided by infowars). The following comments suggest that there is little room for consideration of exemption or compromise.

"We decided that the entire population, all citizens and residents, without any exception, will be vaccinated against the flu,"

“We are only waiting for the European Union’s approval to start vaccinating everyone,”

Health Minister Dimitris Avramopoulos

I'm curious to see how this will play out in Ireland. Can anyone provide links or recommend literature in relation to Irish exemption from potential mandatory vaccinations? In the US, Attorney Alan G. Philips practices vaccine exemptions and waiver issues (check out his site here). An interesting article highlighted on infowars in which he examines several myths and presents corrosponding truths in relation to vaccinations. The last line of the following quote offers an interesting if not somewhat chilling perspective:

In a December 1994 Medical Post article, Dr. Guylaine Lanctot said:
“The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are actually changing our genetic code through vaccination….100 years from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was vaccines.”

My question: What do you all think?

6th · 03-08-2009 11:22pm

Mod note: The Op has taken alot of time to lay this out and I would hope that people will show a similar level of respect/effort in their replies.

meglome · 04-08-2009 1:48am

I posted this in another thread.

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on CBS news about the seriousness of the H1N1 virus and the vaccine.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5199389n&tag=related;photovideo

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5199449n&tag=mg;eveningnews

Full testing will be done, voluntary vaccination, etc from the horses mouth.

I've also saw the HSE here saying the same thing, that they wouldn't be making it mandatory, although don't have a link for it.

Maybe inforwars were, I dunno, exaggerating or perhaps lying.

bonkey · 04-08-2009 6:55am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Subject: I've come across an interesting audio exchange in relation to exemptions from the upcoming H1N1 vaccinations if you have the time to listen.

Summary: A concerned member of the public contacts the Arkansas Dept. of Health and Legal Council. The issue of exemption is raised though from what I've digested, the caller is concerned that he is only allowed to apply for exemption and that his fate is at the whims of whomever is responsible for screening the applicants. The representative suggests that mandatory vaccinations are constitutional. The caller further enquires how to protect himself after finding out that religious exemptions will not apply.

My thoughts: I think it's an interesting conversation though I'm not familiar enough with medical legislation to know whether the representative is correct or not.

Thanks for the summary....I don't have access to youtube where I am right now.

From some quick searching around, my understanding of the situation is as follows:

Arkansas does not currently have, nor have plans for, a mandatory vaccination program. The conversation revolves around a hypoothetical situation. I can't comment on whether or not the Legal Counsel is correct - I'm not sure that mandatory vaccination would be constitutional, but my guess is that it would go to the courts in the US.

AS an aside, This is the current state of affairs in arkansas.. Note that there is a clear process for applying for exemptions for children, both on medical and religious grounds. I assume that only children are mentioned because the only formalised programs for vaccination are for children...but I could be wrong.

I'm curious to see how this will play out in Ireland. Can anyone provide links or recommend literature in relation to Irish exemption from potential mandatory vaccinations?

Has there ever been a mandatory vaccination program in Ireland? If not, then it would be somewhat unusual to find existing literature about how to get an exemption from something that has never been legislated for.

I would suggest that your first step would be to identify previous mandatory vaccination programs. If there were none, you're not going to find any information on how to go about getting an exemption.

My question: What do you all think?

<mod hat on>

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that this is a topic for Conspiracy Theories.

I accept that there are CTs about vaccination in general, and that there are CTs about H1N1, but I'm uncertain that this means any discussion about the two is fair game for this forum.

I'm also very conscious of the fact that this is very close to amounting to the seeking of legal or medical advice....both of which are absolute no-go's on boards.ie.

There is already a thread for "general info" on the whole H1N1 thing. I don't see why this merits a seperate thread unless the intention is to discuss the legal and/or medical aspects which are verboten.

<mod hat off>

For me, this thread showing clearly that there is no real global co-ordination. Some nations are talking about enforced vaccination. Some nations are talking about voluntary vaccination with national coverage capability. Some nations are sayign nothing. The Arkansas conversation seems to be looking at the question at state level, suggesting that different states can (and will) enact different responses.

The EU seems to be pulling its weight to do what it should...approve vaccinations for use. It doesn't, however, seem to be telling its member-states what they should do with these vaccines - as evidenced by the disparate range of responses so far.

What we're seeing is literally the full range of responses...from little more than complete disregard of the issue right through to the potential trampling of civil rights in the name of protectng the populace. If that's a conspiracy, its one that's been camouflaged to look identical to disparate legislative groups each deciding on their own how they wish to deal with a potential global threat.

ilivetolearn · 07-08-2009 3:48am

meglome wrote: »

“US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on CBS news about the seriousness of the H1N1 virus and the vaccine.
Full testing will be done, voluntary vaccination, etc from the horses mouth.”

Sebelius states the following in relation to ‘testing’:

I don’t know the exact numbers but there will be testing on adults, testing on children and testing on pregnant women to make sure again that we have a safe vaccine and Kitty, this is going to be very similar to the seasonal flu vaccine

I couldn’t find anything that explicitly mentions ‘full testing’ rather than ‘testing’ in either of the videos. Sebelius at the very end of the first video goes on to describe how vaccination protocols change and indeed the vaccination itself should the virus mutate. I’m certainly not an expert when it comes to virology though I would think that when the virus mutations attack us as a species, our turnaround time for researching, developing, manufacturing and distributing the vaccinations would be curtailed by an urgency of demand whereby essentially corners are cut during production and a smaller window exists for testing. It’s not all vinegar and thorns though. Multiple mutations are a pharmaceutical companies dreams come true after all.

I can’t find anything about ‘voluntary vaccination’ either. Can you point out when and where she says this? I might have missed that part. Something else from the horse’s mouth that you instead might have been referring to (which incidentally is an example of what you were referring to when you said ‘the seriousness of the vaccine and virus’):

(Responding to if she is worried about outbreaks when school starts this September in light of the vaccinations not being available until mid-October.)
“It’s likely to present itself when schools re-open so yes, there are concerns, which again why it is so important to take the basic steps of some [I can’t tell which of the following she says: socialized / social isolation / socialization] and don’t get on an airplane, don’t send your child to school, stay home yourself and try to limit how we spread this virus until again we have vaccines available and then hopefully parent will feel comfortable about having their children vaccinated…”

As extreme her depiction is it only implies that she hopes people will be comfortable about being vaccinated. It doesn’t suggest that the vaccinations are mandatory nor does it suggest that they are not mandatory. Even if it actually is the case that full testing is to be done and that vaccinations are voluntary I’m still concerned with why the health representative in the audio clip contradicts Sebelius in relation to the mandatory requirements are on vaccinations (this is based on the fact that she does address this as you’ve claimed). Granted, the representative may simply be incorrect. Furthermore I’m concerned with what’s been put forward by Attorney Alan G. Philips on the matter of vaccinations. Philips asserts that are not safe nor are they effective. If Philips is correct then in the past vaccines have been declared as safe when they are unsafe. This would render anything Sebelius says about taking adequate safety measures obsolete since the pharmaceutical companies standards of safety would clearly be intrinsically different to the public’s.

On the matter of exemption he asserts the following:

Myth No. 9: “Vaccinations are legally mandated and unavoidable…”
All states require them. However, laws vary by state, legal exemptions exist, and all states offer one or more of the following:
– all states allow medical exemptions for persons susceptible to adverse reactions; parents can cite this for their children based on family history;
– 48 states offer religious exemptions but may require membership in an established religious organization; “according to federal precedent, personal religious beliefs may be sufficient for a religious exemption regardless of which religious organization you belong to, or whether or not you belong to an organized religion at all;” in addition, the Supreme Court defined religion broadly for legal purposes; and
– 17 states allow philosophical or personal exemptions.
All public and private schools must comply with federal and state vaccination laws and permit legal exemptions.
Truth No. 9
Some vaccines are mandated, but most, perhaps all, US citizens may use legal exemptions to avoid them. In a recent article, however, Phillips states:
“All non-medical exemptions in the US are ultimately provided conditionally. That is, states have the right to require immunization for everyone, legally exempt or not, during an (emergency) outbreak, other than (for) those” with medical exemptions.

Notice that Philips submits that non-medical exemptions are ‘provided conditionally’. I guess my main concern is that either Sebelius is evading the topic of mandatory requirements or that Sebelius and Philips are conflicting which means that one of them is either incorrect or a liar. That unsettles me.

meglome wrote: »

“I've also saw the HSE here saying the same thing, that they wouldn't be making it mandatory, although don't have a link for it.”

A link would be great to corroborate this if anyone else can help. All I can find on the HSE website is page with a link to a pdf dated in 2007, titled ‘National Plan for Pandemic Influenza January 2007’(???).

meglome wrote: »

“Maybe infowars were, I dunno, exaggerating or perhaps lying.”

I’m taking from your witticism that you’re not a fan of Mr. Jones. I’m open minded to the fact that Jones plugs his own DVD’s in his broadcasts and that he may be partially or entirely motivated by profit. I could be mistaken but it seemed his ‘The Obama Deception’ documentary contains much of the same footage used originally in ‘Endgame’. He also seemed to cash in rather quickly on this Obama/Socialism image by selling it as an official infowars t-shirt. This guy on www.illuminatinews.com certainly doesn’t approve of how he believes Jones deliberately suppresses information. While Jones may not hit the bull’s-eye he certainly veers towards it and for that I remain an aficionado of his infowars website.

Back to topic, it would be helpful if you could provide select quotations from my post or the links provided in which you feel Jones is ‘exaggerating’ or ‘lying’ so that we have something to work with. Bear in mind that not all the links provided lead to infowars.

ilivetolearn · 07-08-2009 3:57am

bonkey wrote: »

Arkansas does not currently have, nor have plans for, a mandatory vaccination program.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you bit what are basing this on?

bonkey wrote: »

The conversation revolves around a hypoothetical situation.

Can you describe what the hypothetical situation is from your point of view? Whatever the case may be can a hypothetical situation technically not eventually transpire and render the vaccinations mandatory. Concordantly we iiicouldiii find ourselves in a scenario where vaccinations are mandatory and therefore the fears of those wary of unsuccessful exemption are justified.

bonkey wrote: »

I can't comment on whether or not the Legal Counsel is correct - I'm not sure that mandatory vaccination would be constitutional, but my guess is that it would go to the courts in the US.

The Federal Reserve, hemp illegalization and the removal of one’s right to arms are hardly constitutional and yet neither has been brought to court with significant effect. Why would the government feel the need to stop now with vaccinations?

bonkey wrote: »

AS an aside, This is the current state of affairs in arkansas.. Note that there is a clear process for applying for exemptions for children, both on medical and religious grounds. I assume that only children are mentioned because the only formalised programs for vaccination are for children...but I could be wrong.

Thanks for the useful link. What do you mean by ‘formalized’?

bonkey wrote: »

Has there ever been a mandatory vaccination program in Ireland? If not, then it would be somewhat unusual to find existing literature about how to get an exemption from something that has never been legislated for.

I would suggest that your first step would be to identify previous mandatory vaccination programs. If there were none, you're not going to find any information on how to go about getting an exemption.

After feverously searching for the answer to forensic scene music montage of CSI: New York I’ve come up with no prior occurrences. How about you? One ponders further; has Greece ever had mandatory vaccinations?

bonkey wrote: »

<mod hat on>

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that this is a topic for Conspiracy Theories.

I accept that there are CTs about vaccination in general, and that there are CTs about H1N1, but I'm uncertain that this means any discussion about the two is fair game for this forum.

I'm also very conscious of the fact that this is very close to amounting to the seeking of legal or medical advice....both of which are absolute no-go's on boards.ie.

There is already a thread for "general info" on the whole H1N1 thing. I don't see why this merits a seperate thread unless the intention is to discuss the legal and/or medical aspects which are verboten.

<mod hat off>

What’s the protocol for responding to modspeak? Do I silently acknowledge it and ignore it? Can I respond to it but not disagree with it under penalty of infraction? Should my response be by way of PM?

bonkey wrote: »

This thread showing clearly that there is no real global co-ordination. Some nations are talking about enforced vaccination. Some nations are talking about voluntary vaccination with national coverage capability. Some nations are sayign nothing. The Arkansas conversation seems to be looking at the question at state level, suggesting that different states can (and will) enact different responses.
What we're seeing is literally the full range of responses...from little more than complete disregard of the issue right through to the potential trampling of civil rights in the name of protectng the populace. If that's a conspiracy, its one that's been camouflaged to look identical to disparate legislative groups each deciding on their own how they wish to deal with a potential global threat.

If there is an effort of global co-ordination as you mentioned why are you expecting it to be like a synchronized swimming routine? Not every nation would swim the same but ultimately would complete the one global routine as outlined by the choreographer. No camouflage; just goggles and caps.

bonkey wrote: »

It doesn't, however, seem to be telling its member-states what they should do with these vaccines - as evidenced by the disparate range of responses so far

Can you elaborate on this further?

bonkey · 07-08-2009 7:32am

ilivetolearn wrote: »

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you bit what are basing this on?

The complete lack of evidence that they have such a program currently in operation, coupled with teh co,plete lack of evidence that they are planning such a program. Also, when I was digging around to write that original post, one of the articles I had included a statement from some official to the same extent. I don't have the link still, so I wouldn't put much weight in that claim.

Perhaps it would be better if I said there is currently no such program in operation, and I could find no evidence presented anywhere that such a program is planned.

Can you describe what the hypothetical situation is from your point of view?

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the idea that the state of Arkansas is putting a mandatory vaccination program in place.

The question about obtaining an exemption from such a program is, therefore, hypothetical. It requires that we assume such a program were to come about, and were to make assumptions about what the legal nature of the program was.

Whatever the case may be can a hypothetical situation technically not eventually transpire and render the vaccinations mandatory. Concordantly we iiicouldiii find ourselves in a scenario where vaccinations are mandatory and therefore the fears of those wary of unsuccessful exemption are justified.

We could also find ourselves in any one of an infinite number of other possibilities.

Consider the conversation from the perspective of the legal counsel. For simplicity's sake, lets assume that either there is no plan for a mandatory program. Maybe there is but the legal counsel doesn't know about it...maybe there is, and the legal counsel isn't allowed to let anyone know what they know about it. But rather than having to cover all three variations of the same thing below, lets just take it that wherever I say something that suggests there is no plan, I'm really referring to all three possibilities.

From a legal perspective, its reasonable to suggest that medical exemptions will still apply. After all, it would be a strange thing for a government to insist that people be given something that could kill them from an allergic reaction or somesuch. Note - it would be unreasonable to suggest that people who required such an exemption would not be subject to other conditions because that depends on the specifics of a plan thtat doesn't exist.

In a national state of emergency, the US government has some scary powers. So its not unimaginable that a constitutional, mandatory program could come about.

After that...what more is there? Religious or moral objections...no-one can say for certain that these would be honoured in each and every possible situation, so it would depend on the specifics. Who'd make the final decision for exemption? Again...dependant on specifics.

In effect, almost all detail comes (unsurprisingly) from the details. If there is no plan...there are no details...so its virtually impossible to give a clear, concise answer.

Why would the government feel the need to stop now with vaccinations?

Your question implies that you are of the opinion that vaccinations would be unconstitutional. Can you explain why you think it would be so? Have you considered the possibility that such a program could be performed under a declared national state of emergency?

After feverously searching for the answer to forensic scene music montage of CSI: New York I’ve come up with no prior occurrences. How about you?

I'm not sure. I don't think various vaccination programs for children were ever mandatory in Ireland...and they're the only case I could think of which might heve been.

What’s the protocol for responding to modspeak? Do I silently acknowledge it and ignore it? Can I respond to it but not disagree with it under penalty of infraction? Should my response be by way of PM?

PM me.

If there is an effort of global co-ordination as you mentioned why are you expecting it to be like a synchronized swimming routine? Not every nation would swim the same but ultimately would complete the one global routine as outlined by the choreographer. No camouflage; just goggles and caps.

I'm not expecting anything. I'm commenting that its another "absence of evidence". I accept that this is not the same as "evidence of absence", but from what I can see the entire theory that there is a conspiracy here seems to be based on little more than the reality that we can't proce there isn't one (which, of course, would be impossible).

Can you elaborate on this further?

I'm not sure how. What do you feel needs further elaboration in what I said?

ilivetolearn · 08-08-2009 7:06pm

bonkey wrote: »

The complete lack of evidence that they have such a program currently in operation, coupled with teh co,plete lack of evidence that they are planning such a program.

Aside from the lack of evidence for existence or planning, the web page in question furthermore comments on general vaccination exemption applications so I do see your point. On the other hand the application is concerned with babies, children and healthcare workers only and does not seem specific to the upcoming swine flu vaccinations. Their vaccination schedule PDF document states the following in relation to influenza:

6. Influenza vaccine. (Minimum age: 6 months for trivalent inactivated
influenza vaccine [TIV]; 2 years for live, attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV])
• Administer annually to children aged 6 months through 18 years.
• For healthy nonpregnant persons (i.e., those who do not have underlying medical conditions that predispose them to influenza complications) aged 2 through 49 years, either LAIV or TIV may be used.
• Children receiving TIV should receive 0.25 mL if aged 6 through 35 months or 0.5 mL if aged 3 years or older.
• Administer 2 doses (separated by at least 4 weeks) to children aged younger than 9 years who are receiving influenza vaccine for the first time or who were vaccinated for the first time during the previous influenza season but only received 1 dose.

Again this is concerned with sub-groups only and does not seem specific to the upcoming swine flu vaccinations. The second PDF document focuses only on immunizations for babies. The link to the CDC website contained a further link to http://www.flu.gov/ . This is what I found after searching for the keyword ‘exemption’:

What I’m trying to say is that the link you provided is a great resource but it does not address swine flu vaccinations exemptions specifically and the general information it does provide is limited to the subcategory of children / babies / healthcare workers. Does the absence of evidence really imply anything either way? Objectively it shouldn’t. Nothing specifically addresses whether or not swine flu vaccinations will be mandatory. I know I’m asking for a lot but it would be nice to explicitly see “Swine flu vaccinations [will be/not be] mandatory.” If it turns out that they are mandatory then I’d like to see “The following exemptions will apply…”. A little clarity from public health officials would go along way into quelling the concerns of many a theorist on the matter.

[FLIPPANT MUSING] It would certainly be easier to persuade a public to accept mandatory vaccinations when outbreaks are becoming more critical. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of timing until a government decides to divulge mandatory requirements to its public to ensure greater compliance. That might explain the current lack of information in the link you provided. [/FLIPPANT MUSING]

bonkey wrote: »

Also, when I was digging around to write that original post, one of the articles I had included a statement from some official to the same extent.

Let me know if you come across it again. I’ve borrowed your shovel for a minute to do some digging of my own:
After entering ‘mandatory’ + ‘vaccinations’ + ‘arkansas’ as keywords Google’s search engine returned the following results:

Result 1: A blog post containing the same audio video provided in my original post. This is actually the blog of the caller in the said audio video. (Slant: CT Proponent)
Result 2: This thread funnily enough. (Slant: Generally Balanced)
Result 3: A Daily Motion clip containing the same audio again. (Slant: News & Politics)
Result 4: A Prison Planet article highlighting the audio video. (Slant: CT Proponent)
Result 5: The same article as above. (Slant: CT Proponent)
Result 6: The same article as above. (Slant: CT Proponent)
Result 7: Highlights the same article as above. (Slant: Anti-State, Anti-War and Pro-Market)
Result 8: Highlights the same article as above. (Slant: CT Proponent)
Result 9: A forum discussing mandatory vaccinations in Massachusetts. (Slant: City Data Resource)
Result 10: A blog highlighting the audio video clip.

It’s fair to say that the majority of results are pro-CT and are centered around the audio video clip rather than official governmental information to support or dispute what was said by the citizen and representative. What I did find however was a Times Magazine article entitled “How to Deal with Swine Flu: Heeding the Mistakes of 1976”. It’s a fantastic read if you have the time. If you don’t then here’s my overview:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1894129,00.html

The first paragraph talks about the outbreak of swine flu at a Fort Dix Army Base of New Jersey in February 1976 in which one private died and hundreds of soldiers were infected. The nationwide vaccination program ordered by Gerald Ford would cost 500 million dollars in today’s money (many CT proponents would argue that this is grounds for ulterior motive). Many who took the vaccination later developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a disease that is caused by the vaccine, thirty of which died, twenty-five of which were caused by severe pulmonary complications resulting from an immunopathological reaction. Let’s break this down into simpler chronological terms:

Infection & Kills > Pay Pharma > Vaccination > Vaccination Harms and Kills More > Civil Unrest > Vaccinations Cancelled > Epidemic Fails To Materialize

Did the vaccination do more harm than good? Yes. Is there a chance of history repeating itself? Personally, I’m not in a position to form a conclusion on this as of yet. The article continues:

But they also say the decisions made in the wake of the '76 outbreak … provide a cautionary tale for public health officials, who may soon have to consider whether to institute draconian measures to combat the disease.

Eh? Draconian? As in exceedingly harsh; very severe, cruel. (adj.)? You see, this is where it all ties in with the topic of mandatory vaccinations and exemptions. I just don’t see exemptions flying if health officials at this moment in time are considering ‘draconian’ measures against the current influenza. While Howard Markel (director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan and a historical consultant to the CDC on flu pandemics) talks about instituting mass vaccination programs he doesn’t go into detail on exemption. He also urges the public to trust the government. Philip Joseph Watson at Prison Planet had the following to say on the article:

Americans would indeed have to be very trustworthy and ultimately forgiving in taking a vaccine by government decree manufactured by a company that was been caught red-handed contaminating their vaccines with far deadlier viruses than swine flu.

I appreciate that this has been brought up in existing thread though it does have a bearing on how lenient the public’s reception should be.

bonkey wrote: »

We could also find ourselves in any one of an infinite number of other possibilities.

We could. But don’t we have the right to know even in a hypothetical context?

Congressman Ron Paul, who we should all be familiar with, was a freshman congressman during the 1976 outbreak and voted against nationwide inoculation because it had claimed only twenty-five lives at the time. He further implies that the current hysteria is overblown. The point I’m making is that the spreading of the influenza is considered by many to be a hypothesis and yet elaborate strategies and purchases have been put in place as ‘just in case’ safety net. Why should the earlier hypothesis not be afforded due clarity and foresight? It simply enquires about the nature of exemption as it stands now and how it stands should vaccinations ever become mandatory. I just can’t find anything that answers this.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/03/swine.flu.react/index.html

bonkey wrote: »

wherever I say something that suggests there is no plan, I'm really referring to all three possibilities

Understood.

bonkey wrote: »

From a legal perspective, its reasonable to suggest that medical exemptions will still apply. After all, it would be a strange thing for a government to insist that people be given something that could kill them from an allergic reaction or somesuch.

Cheney must have been having an off day then when he decided that the administration of a nationwide smallpox vaccination ‘was a prudent counterterrorism step’ despite the fact that it would have resulted in ‘dozens of deaths’. ‘The smallpox vaccine kills between 1 and 2 people per million people inoculated’. I know that ultimately Bush voted against this but it certainly contravenes your statement. (sourced from Times article)

bonkey wrote: »

In a national state of emergency, the US government has some scary powers. So its not unimaginable that a constitutional, mandatory program could come about.

How do constitutional and mandatory go hand in hand? I’m not necessarily saying they don’t. I just want your perspective.

bonkey wrote: »

After that...what more is there?

How about basic right to decide what vaccinations you take based on the controversy surrounding the harmful effects of vaccinations? Some believe that we can’t risk further outbreak by allowing a paranoid minority to refuse vaccination. This minority might even be considered to be hysterical when the time comes. That being said some believe the requirement for mandatory vaccinations to be hysterical. The hysteria apparently goes both ways according to the opposites in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy

bonkey wrote: »

Your question implies that you are of the opinion that vaccinations would be unconstitutional. Can you explain why you think it would be so?

I’m not decided on ‘vaccinations’ in general. I certainly don’t believe that ‘mandatory vaccinations’ are constitutional.
You should check out this link if you’re interested in how mandatory vaccinations are deemed unconstitutional (federal judge declares the Arkansas immunization exemption laws unconstitutional):

http://www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-160.htm

The scope of this federal case is not just limited to Arkansas.

Furthermore, an official quote from an eclectic US counsel (Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee) surmising a recent health-care reform bill:

“Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=11128

Take the time to dissect the above quotation. Reminders and home visits? I’m of the opinion that this is an unconstitutional approach dressed as gentle reminders and convenient house visits. An excerpt from the bill drafts elaborates on this:

“Funds received under a grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including—“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”

On paper it all seems fine though I can’t help but personally feel it’s invasive and somewhat aggressive. As an individual considering exemption the above interventions seem to present a fair amount of hassle and opposition. It’s like a vegetarian having to entertain reminders about the benefits of eating meat.

bonkey wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that such a program could be performed under a declared national state of emergency?

I’m aware of executive orders that can suspend the United States constitution and Bill of Rights if that’s what you’re asking.

bonkey wrote: »

I don't think various vaccination programs for children were ever mandatory in Ireland

“Vaccination is not mandatory in Ireland, but is strongly advised by the Department of Health and Children.”
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/health/children-s-health/immunisations-for-children

bonkey wrote: »

the entire theory that there is a conspiracy here seems to be based on little more than the reality that we can't proce there isn't one

I’ll save this for the PM at a later stage.

bonkey wrote: »

What do you feel needs further elaboration in what I said?

Were you suggesting that each country will do their own thing independent of each other or that the EU should also be guiding them?

tallaght01 · 09-08-2009 1:33am

Honestly, there no plans whatsoever for mandatory vaccination.

There are powers for that kind of thing, but they have to be in really exceptional circumstances.

You certainly won't find it mentioned in any swine flu pandemic plan.

It would be insane, and you wouldn't get enough doctors and nurses to give it, and you couldn't sustain a normal health service if you took all your staff away to vaccinate.

I know the regulars on this forum don't want to believe that, and won't believe it. But for people just randomly reading through here, I think it's important to point out that it's simply not an issue.

Diogenes · 09-08-2009 6:55am

Different countries are clearly handling the issue different. A Doctor friend of mine in Australia is saying the hysteria is over there, and they're now merely calling it "the flu", and she wouldn't take tamiflu because she's worried about the side effects. The UK has a hotline, staffed by non medical staff, and have been handing it out like candy ('got a temperature?'. "yup". 'got muscle ache?' "yup". "Here have some tamiflu").

Mandatory vaccines for all, is bonkers when you take into account the concept of herd immunity. Icke and his ilk are actually dangerous in this regard. His claims that the vaccine contains foetus material and formalyde, have no substance.

ilivetolearn · 09-08-2009 12:43pm

Firstly, hello. I've found some of your past posts of interest.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Honestly, there no plans whatsoever for mandatory vaccination.

I bet that's what the Greeks thought too.

Are you basing this on an absence of evidence or evidence contrary to such a program existing? I know that the former should suffice but it would be dandy to have the latter.

tallaght01 wrote: »

There are powers for that kind of thing, but they have to be in really exceptional circumstances.

Can you flesh out the above quoted statement? A link or two will even do.

The unfortunate thing , and I suspect a healthy amount of Irish CT proponents might admit to this, is that I'm more familiar with the US and UK political and legal structures than I am with Ireland's. I've noticed that particularily when it comes to fluoridation legislation, codex alimentarius, taxation and in this case let's run with martial law (this is probably more extreme a scenario than you were suggesting) as an example I am moderately familiar on an international level but not at all on national level.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It would be insane, and you wouldn't get enough doctors and nurses to give it, and you couldn't sustain a normal health service if you took all your staff away to vaccinate.

Are you saying that this is potentially what might happen if the vaccinations programs became mandatory in Ireland?

tallaght01 wrote: »

I know the regulars on this forum don't want to believe that, and won't believe it.

Why are you assuming that 'the regulars' will lean towards the conspiracy side of the argument? Often times there seems to be more skeptics than CT proponents on this forum. Doesn't that completely negate your statement?

Innaccuracies aside, I think you've made an unfair generalization in that CT proponents are subjective. I'd like to think that fellow CT proponents 'do want' and 'will want' the truth on the matter whether or not it supports/proves or challenges/disproves the 'conspiracy theory'.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But for people just randomly reading through here, I think it's important to point out that it's simply not an issue.

Should it not be more important to encourage objective research of each side of the coin rather than simply taking your word in good faith. That is ultimately all you're offering here.

I appreciate that there is many an exaggerated trash theory surrounding the current influenza but if you negotiate your way through the hype you will occasionally arrive at tidbits of viable information that any academic, intellect or altruist should be concerned with, a few of which have already been presented in this thread.

For me, it's the negative historical background of vaccinations, the adverse effects of vaccinations and of course, the mandatory/exemption issue.

ilivetolearn · 09-08-2009 2:00pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Different countries are clearly handling the issue different.

Does the fact that countries are evidently implementing the vaccinations differently imply that not one group (>1 country) of countries will implement the vaccinations similarly? It doesn't. It's neither here nor there.

Diogenes wrote: »

A Doctor friend of mine in Australia is saying the hysteria is over there, and they're now merely calling it "the flu", and she wouldn't take tamiflu because she's worried about the side effects. The UK has a hotline, staffed by non medical staff, and have been handing it out like candy ('got a temperature?'. "yup". 'got muscle ache?' "yup". "Here have some tamiflu").

Thanks for the information. It's insane that the hotline is so liberal considering that tamiflu's effectiveness is under the spotlight.

Some of the following excerpts are questionable (the last one just seems too extreme) but they're worth reviewing:

"I went to the doctor with what I thought was the flu. He immediately gave me tamilflu. After four doses, I started hallucinating, could not stand up, developed pneumonia, ear infections and was hospitalized for five days."

"My daughter was prescribed Tami Flu in March of 2007. After taking the drug, she completely lost her ability to walk for three straight days."

"My Son in law has recently had a horrible reaction to Tamiflu resulting in Abnormal behavior."

"Tamiflu almost crushed my family.. I am 22 and after taking the drug I had numerous hallucinations, lost ability to walk,vomited on average three times a day and most severly became so depressed seeds of suicide began to poison my every thought.. Im still not fully recovered and now forced to seek psychiatric help and try to balance out my life again.. I went from normal college student to barely holding on.. "

http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/tamiflu/T5T8TK967U6DPFEL8

On a side note this may also be of interest. The site I sourced it from had the following to say:

Tamiflu producers PREDICTED that there would be an increase of sales in 2009 of Tamiflu by a massive 531%. This was put down to increased demand for the product. Unless they are capable of knowing in advance that governments would need to stockpile the drug in massive numbers before hand, they would need to be able to see into the future!
http://www.news-independent.com/tamiflu-side-effects-pandemic-conspiracy/

Diogenes wrote: »

Mandatory vaccines for all, is bonkers when you take into account the concept of herd immunity.

As in mandatory vaccinations wouldn't be necessary?

Diogenes wrote: »

Icke and his ilk are actually dangerous in this regard. His claims that the vaccine contains foetus material and formalyde, have no substance.

I hadn't heard of that. I'm not a fan of Icke though I'm familiar with some of his theories.

nullzero · 11-08-2009 12:21am

This is an interesting subject and obviously very topical at this time.
I'm not going to claim to have any expertise in this field, although I have done some research into it in the past.

Firstly how I see this topic fitting into the CT section would have to with with theories suggesting that the H1N1 Swine Flu virus was originally man made and released into the population as a field test to help gather data on how the release of a similar, albeit deadlier virus in the future would be treated by the population and the WHO etc...
Obviously I do not want to debate the merits of the conspiracy theory, I am simply highlighting how this topic may find itself fitting in as a conspiracy theory.

As for mandatory vacinations against H1N1 in either the US, Ireland or elsewhere for that matter, I can't really say for sure what is going on in that regard.
It wouldn't surprise me to see it happen at some point in the near future, but seeing that the vacine is still relativly "new", I don't think plans for vacination procedure on a mass scale will be within view for possibly a number of months, most probably when the traditional flu season arrrives and the H1N1 virus may become a greater treath, therefor meriting a mandatory vacination programe on some level.

Other mandatory vacination programmes have been rolled out in the US over the last few years. You'll have to bear with me for links and additional info, but for the sake of discussion I am pulling this stuff rom memory.
Usually these vacination programmes are aimed at young children and often include a ridiculous amount of unrequired vacinations which some commentators have suggested have harmful side affects.
Taking that into consideration it's not too far out to suggest that the new H1N1 vacine may perhaps contain more than the H1N1 vacination itself and if you subscribe to the view that the pharmacutical companies who produce these vacines are more than a little bit shady and have more than the well being of potential Swine Flu suffers at heart, it's not too dificult to believe that a mandatory vacination may not be too far away.

uprising · 11-08-2009 10:58am

Mandatory vaccination is not far fetched, and could be introduced against the publics approval any time soon.

Some links from the U.S., leader in the field of forced vaccination.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf

Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the early nineteenth

century, with Massachusetts enacting the first such law in 1809.

State Mandatory Vaccination Laws

School Vaccination Requirements. State laws mandating vaccinations for
children are very common. Every state has a law requiring children to be vaccinated
before they enroll in a public or private school. Early statutes required vaccination against
smallpox and were amended as new vaccines were introduced.10 Many modern school
vaccination laws are the result of measles outbreaks in the 1960's and 1970's.11 Generally,
states use the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule of immunizations
as a guide, and require children to be vaccinated against a number of diseases on the

schedule, including diphtheria, measles, rubella, and polio.

Remember the 1979 hepatitis B vaccine in NewYork for gay men, that was a major success...
http://notaids.com/en/node/84

some links:
Swine flu fearmongering
http://news.deviantart.com/article/85894/

Interesting reading about Gulf war syndrome, A Lecture By Captain Joyce Riley in Houston, Texas on January 15, 1996
http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html

Sarkozy’s Secret Plan for Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccination
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13835

uprising · 14-08-2009 2:40am

CBS " 60 MINUTES" documentary on the swine flu epidemics of 1976 in the U.S. It went on air only once and was never shown again. Please look at this, it talks by itself.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam

And some links to other BAD affects of vaccines that any responsible person/parent should consider before vaccinating yourself or children.

Unplugged: Investigating The H1N1 Vaccine
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5237495.shtml

Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/

The Informed Parent (All parents should look at this)
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/informed.html

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated
"We surveyed over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and found that vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys." - Generation Rescue
http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html

Secret report reveals 18 child deaths following vaccinations
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8021

The Disappearing Male
The Disappearing Male is about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26130

Vaccine Safety Website
There is growing evidence that immunization cause a large number of other chronic diseases including diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, autoimmune diseases, allergies, asthma, cancers, and Gulf War Syndrome. Data linking these diseases to vaccines includes human and animal data. In some cases the increased risk of developing these diseases following immunization exceeds the risk of the infectious complications prevented by immunization.
http://www.vaccines.net/newpage114.htm

Autism rates rocket.
Despite this health authorities worldwide refuse to carry out large-scale studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Such studies would determine finally the issue of the extent to which vaccination is implicated in causing the condition.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/autism-rates-rocket/

meglome · 14-08-2009 2:53am

uprising wrote: »

CBS " 60 MINUTES" documentary on the swine flu epidemics of 1976 in the U.S. It went on air only once and was never shown again. Please look at this, it talks by itself.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam

You do realise how many people used to die in flu epidemics in the past, right? Sometime millions, but not unusual for it to be in the hundreds of thousands worldwide. So far this time the deaths are in the hundreds, the NWO really need to sort themselves out if that's where we're still going with this.

uprising · 14-08-2009 4:03am

meglome wrote: »

You do realise how many people used to die in flu epidemics in the past, right? Sometime millions, but not unusual for it to be in the hundreds of thousands worldwide. So far this time the deaths are in the hundreds, the NWO really need to sort themselves out if that's where we're still going with this.

I added to my post, please go back and recheck what I added.

Actually I can't make head nor tails of what your post is about, or you for that matter, do you just disagree with EVERYTHING?, I'm raising valid points that you simply "TRY" to put down without a bit of intelligence.
I understand flu has killed millions in the past, mainly due to poor sanitation, unknown information about how it spread, mainly a lack of tissues and soap.
As far as I can see ALL people who died from "this" epidemic had underlying health problems, most just stayed in bed and got better, so why get jabbed with a cocktail of chemicals that we dont need and DONT know the long term affects of.
Please show some common sense

H1N1 Swine Flu Cases - U.S.A.
Cases 33,902
Deaths 00,170

Swine Flu H1N1 Cases - World
Cases 89,921
Deaths 00,382

USA Swine Flu Statistics last updated July - 3 - 2009
World Swine Flu Statistics last Updated July - 3 - 2009

NOTE:Swine Flu Cases Now Too Numerous to Count

Deaths NOT too numerous to count.

Regular flu has killed thousands since January

(CNN) -- There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.
People are nervous about swine flu, but the regular flu kills 36,000 people a year in the United States.

That one? The regular flu
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/index.html

ilivetolearn · 15-08-2009 10:51am

@ nullzero and uprising: Thank you sincerely for the additional resources. I'll review these and revert back before the weekend is out.

@meglome: Your first post was constructive and I found it usel. Your second post just seems to be taking a puck-shot at the NWO and it's associated conspiracy theories. This subject conspiracy theory of this thread can exist independently of the NWO. It would be great if you could instead reply to my last response. Sebelius raised some interesting points about the gravitas of the outbreak.

@all: Check out the below video clip. infowars describes it as follows:

WMTW, a television station in Portland, Maine, owned by Hearst, has produced a slick propaganda piece as part of an emerging effort to stampede people into submitting to a toxic and cancer virus flu vaccine this autumn.
On Thursday, Paul Joseph Watson reported on a National Guard “riot scenario” exercise conducted at Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School in Paris, Maine. The school was chosen as a distribution site for the H1N1 flu vaccine by state officials. “The National Guardsmen will take on the roles of panicked citizens and military police and practice what they would do, such as using tear gas, in the case of a riot,” the Sun Journal reported on August 13.
Sgt. Skip Mowatt of the Paris Police Department told WMTW 8 desperate citizens — arriving without proper ID or living outside the designated area — may overwhelm local police and engage in violence in an effort to get their soft kill vaccination. In such a situation, the television station reports, the police in Paris would team up with the National Guard to baton, pepper spray, and tase rioters.
http://www.infowars.com/maine-tv-station-airs-report-on-national-guard-and-flu-pandemic-riots/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJtk_IG8gU&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/maine-tv-station-airs-report-on-national-guard-and-flu-pandemic-riots/&feature=player_embedded#t=66

ilivetolearn · 28-08-2009 8:45pm

Apparently "Pandemic Response Bill” 2028 was just passed by the Massachussets state Senate. It suspends constitutional rights and permits forced vaccinations, fines for non-compliance and decontaminations.

Document: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf

This surmised breakdown of the language is interesting (apologies for the length):

(Violation of 4th Amendment: Illegal search and seizure)
During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority… may exercise authority… to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility; to destroy any material; to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

(Violation of 14th Amendment; illegal arrest without a warrant)
…an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. [Gunpoint]

(Government price controls)
The attorney general, in consultation with the office of consumer affairs and business regulation, and upon the declaration by the governor that a supply emergency exists, shall take appropriate action to ensure that no person shall sell a product or service that is at a price that unreasonably exceeds the price charged before the emergency.

“Involuntary Transportation” (also known as kidnapping)
Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.

$1,000 / day in fines
Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which noncompliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both.

Forced vaccinations
Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority: (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease…

Forced quarantine for those who refuse (illegal imprisonment without charge)
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.

Arrest for refusal to be “decontaminated”
If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court… During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.

Interrogation
When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under section 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public health authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information… If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health…

Forced isolation and quarantine
An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.
http://www.infowars.com/forced-vaccinations-quarantine-camps-health-care-interrogations-and-mandatory-decontaminations/

uprising · 28-08-2009 11:01pm

ilivetolearn wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJtk_IG8gU&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/maine-tv-station-airs-report-on-national-guard-and-flu-pandemic-riots/&feature=player_embedded#t=66

Look's like the national guard were training for forced vaccination's, yet the report swings it 180 degree's and says it's for "people fighting to get it", it should have said " National Guard training for forced vaccination's and involuntary transportation....etc, etc".