*sigh* it's all over-- HSA

[Guest guest]

<A HREF= " http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70820,00.html " >FOXNews.com</A>

It passed overwhelmingly A Democratic attempt to block protection for

vaccine manufacturers lost 52-47

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 11:30:47 AM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> However this bill was something that did get my attention

> considering that it manages to allow the government to threaten my

> life at the point of a gun unless I allow them to threaten my wife

> and child also at the point of a vaccine needle and thus allowing

> them to steal my property if I don't cooperate.

Could you supply me with the part of the bill that states this?

Belinda

[Guest guest]

Well, the whole entire bill sucks, and the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for

it. The vaccine issue is just part of it. The Democrats just happen to have

public health groups and certain other activist groups as their base support,

and they _respond to pressure_ from those groups. The Republicans don't have

to respond to them because those groups never support them. Noone said the

Dems give a flying you-know-what about anything-- nevertheless they respond

to certain pressure groups.

Hitler came to power democratically, we should all remember. All it took

were some bad times that really scared people, and a democratically passed

bill to temporarily suspend the constitution for safety reasons, and before

you know it a military state had 11 million people killed happily being

controlled by one man.

Of course that couldn't happen _here_, as I'm sure the German populace would

have thought back in the day.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It passed overwhelmingly A Democratic attempt to block protection for

>vaccine manufacturers lost 52-47

Blast. Right along party lines.

-

[Guest guest]

you can't be short sighted enought to possibly think this has

anything at all to do with party, do you? This one may have been

driven by the reps but c'mon the dems have been stealing from us

left and right for years. Last I checked these two are frick and

frack, two sides of the very same coin the only difference is they

can't agree on how and where the gov't should be more intrusive. I

wish that someday the american public would remove the pillowcase

that has been pulled over its collective head and realize there is

not a single democrat or republican (sans ron paul) who could give a

rats #!* about us. When that day comes that will be a glorious

day. Instead we continue to choose between the evil of two lessers.

Sorry for the soapbox but my political days are over in that I don't

pay much attention because after years of observing the ineptitude

of the general american public I find our chances reasonably

hopeless. However this bill was something that did get my attention

considering that it manages to allow the government to threaten my

life at the point of a gun unless I allow them to threaten my wife

and child also at the point of a vaccine needle and thus allowing

them to steal my property if I don't cooperate. This is easily the

clearest example of the dire straits this country has arrived at and

I must admit this has been a tough morning as a result. I don't

know about you but I am far more concerned about my dem/rep driven

gov't than I am of any potential/real or imagined terrorist.

DMM

> Chris-

>

> >It passed overwhelmingly A Democratic attempt to block

protection for

> >vaccine manufacturers lost 52-47

>

> Blast. Right along party lines.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Well said, Dr. Mike.

I don't

know about you but I am far more concerned about my dem/rep driven

gov't than I am of any potential/real or imagined terrorist.

DMM

[Guest guest]

It is on the us gov site. I do not have my own copy. I can get you

the link later as it is at the office and not here at home however

it is in the same location as all other bills before the house and

senate.

I obviously took some literary license in my writing however the

bill mandates that should a small pox incident occur a state of

emergency will be declared and each citizen will be mandated to be

vaccinated under threat of penalty of imprisonment, property seizure

or both. There is no exemption or exclusion for religious, medical

or philosophical objection. Read it and weep.

DMM

> In a message dated 11/20/02 11:30:47 AM Central Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > However this bill was something that did get my attention

> > considering that it manages to allow the government to threaten

my

> > life at the point of a gun unless I allow them to threaten my

wife

> > and child also at the point of a vaccine needle and thus

allowing

> > them to steal my property if I don't cooperate.

>

> Could you supply me with the part of the bill that states this?

>

> Belinda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 12:38:57 PM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> I obviously took some literary license in my writing however the

> bill mandates that should a small pox incident occur a state of

> emergency will be declared and each citizen will be mandated to be

> vaccinated under threat of penalty of imprisonment, property seizure

> or both. There is no exemption or exclusion for religious, medical

> or philosophical objection. Read it and weep.

>

> DMM

>

What I understood was that it would be recommended that each citizen be

vaccinated. What I'd like to see is the part about property seizure and

imprisonment as I've not been able to find that anywhere but on this group.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 6:56:39 PM Central Standard Time,

dkemnitz2000@... writes:

> ---Belinda, have you seen www.aapsonline.org? There's a lot of info

> there. Dennis

I don't believe all the hysteria about the bill is warrented. It just sounds

like another Y2K to me.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 9:00:15 PM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Belinda

>

> I only have one thing to say to you on this, stop passing judgement

> and Read The Bill!

>

> Then and only then will you be qualified to make such a statement.

>

> DMM

>

>

Not going to read the bill. Have a few friends who have already done that as

they were very upset about all this going on. They are convinced that ya'll

are making mountains out of mole hills and until somebody proves otherwise

I'm going to agree with them.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 8:08:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Hey, I'm with you, but IMO the last person who *really* cared about working

> people was Senator Wellstone. I don't think he knew much about health

>

> and diet, but he genuinely cared.

I'll second that. I'll sure miss the guy.

Heh heh, when I first heard of his crash it was at Old Sturbridge Village

where my coworker was taking a poll for the morning how many people thought

Cheney engineered it ;-)

I'll miss the guy.

Chris

[Guest guest]

---Belinda, have you seen www.aapsonline.org? There's a lot of info

there. Dennis

In @y..., bilherbs@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/20/02 12:38:57 PM Central Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > I obviously took some literary license in my writing however the

> > bill mandates that should a small pox incident occur a state of

> > emergency will be declared and each citizen will be mandated to

be

> > vaccinated under threat of penalty of imprisonment, property

seizure

> > or both. There is no exemption or exclusion for religious,

medical

> > or philosophical objection. Read it and weep.

> >

> > DMM

> >

>

> What I understood was that it would be recommended that each

citizen be

> vaccinated. What I'd like to see is the part about property seizure

and

> imprisonment as I've not been able to find that anywhere but on

this group.

>

> Belinda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

> you can't be short sighted enought to possibly think this has

>anything at all to do with party, do you?

With all due respect, I absolutely do. On civil liberties -- and forced

vaccination is definitely a civil liberty issue -- I'll take the Democratic

party any day of the week. Same for liability. It's the Republicans who

are trying to immunize all their buddies from product liability, not the

Democrats. I think it's very telling that the HSA vote split right down

party lines. It was the Democrats who were trying to preserve a few of our

rights, not the Republicans.

Now, that said, I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect. Far, far from

it. On some issues, like raw grassfed milk, there might not even be any

effective difference, even if the Republicans are probably friendlier to

big agriculture. And I have a long laundry list of gripes with both

parties. In the last Senate election I voted for NY's Green party

candidate. He was a farmer and was in favor of sustainable agriculture,

family farms, and all kinds of issues dear to my heart. Of course it

didn't do a damn bit of good, and I've since concluded that the Green party

has been hijacked by vegetarians and PETA, so what it really boils down to

is that on a lot of issues, we don't have a party, and by " we " I mean we

people who want sustainable, organic, biodynamic agriculture with all kinds

of great animal fats and healthy, fertile soil -- and so on and so

on. These issues are pretty much completely outside of mainstream

political discourse, so neither party is paying them much

attention. Though I do dream of a day when the GOP goes to bat for statins

and the Democrats fight for Atkins. That wouldn't be perfect, but it would

be something. <g>

>Last I checked these two are frick and

>frack, two sides of the very same coin the only difference is they

>can't agree on how and where the gov't should be more intrusive.

I understand this POV, honestly, but it's just not accurate. The Democrats

have definitely moved to the right, but the Republicans have moved even

further to the right. Back in Nixon's day, Nixon was considered a

right-winger, but nowadays a lot of his domestic policies would be too far

to the left even for the Dems to touch.

> I

>wish that someday the american public would remove the pillowcase

>that has been pulled over its collective head and realize there is

>not a single democrat or republican (sans ron paul) who could give a

>rats #!* about us.

Hey, I'm with you, but IMO the last person who *really* cared about working

people was Senator Wellstone. I don't think he knew much about health

and diet, but he genuinely cared.

>I don't

>know about you but I am far more concerned about my dem/rep driven

>gov't than I am of any potential/real or imagined terrorist.

Again, I'm with you all the way -- but I also have my

disagreements. Terrorism is a real threat. I live in NYC, so I got a

pretty good view of that. We can't forget that. But again, as much as I'm

disgusted by both parties, I think there's a dramatic difference between

them. Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I mean,

WTF? How about some damn priorities! And Ashcroft, the worst threat to

civil liberties in modern memory, is Bush's creature. I'm not saying

everything would be hunky dory under the Democrats. Far from it. But

they'd be a lot less bad, including in ways that are very relevant to this

list.

But all this raises a larger question: what can we do, politically? I just

renewed my WAPF membership, and I know they lobby Congress, but are they at

all effective, or is that lobbying presently a waste of time? Would they

need much more money to even make a ripple?

-

[Guest guest]

Hi DMM,

I cannot find any information on those who have already been vaccinated, and

most people who are over 40 have already been vaccinated. Are they

proposing that we be vaccinated again?

Kat

http://www.katking.com

----- Original Message -----

From: <bilherbs@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:01 PM

Subject: Re: Re: *sigh* it's all over-- HSA

> In a message dated 11/20/02 12:38:57 PM Central Standard Time,

> mmarasco@... writes:

>

> > I obviously took some literary license in my writing however the

> > bill mandates that should a small pox incident occur a state of

> > emergency will be declared and each citizen will be mandated to be

> > vaccinated under threat of penalty of imprisonment, property seizure

> > or both. There is no exemption or exclusion for religious, medical

> > or philosophical objection. Read it and weep.

> >

> > DMM

> >

>

> What I understood was that it would be recommended that each citizen be

> vaccinated. What I'd like to see is the part about property seizure and

> imprisonment as I've not been able to find that anywhere but on this

group.

>

> Belinda

[Guest guest]

At the risk of being pompous I must say paul you are that short

sighted. We just completed 8 years of a democratic president who

erroded and ran roughshod over the constitution on practically a

daily basis. Janet Reno was better than Ashcroft? Gimme a

break. These people, all of them Ashcroft, Reno, Clinton, Bush are

all peas in a pod. Corrupt government official promoting their own

twisted agenda. Anyone who thinks that these people are anything

but promoters of varying ideologies that ALL fall under the banner

of bigger more intrusive government has their eyes closed.

As for terrorism I have no dispute about its realities however I'll

take my chances agains osama myself. I can't manage against a

massive government and a majority populous bamboozled by such. I do

not write this to insinuate that I'm the only one who thinks this.

Lots of people I speak with agree to varying degrees yet the

overwhelming consciousness is exactly as described above. My friend

as long as you or anyone else continues to look to the US Govt or

any govt for that matter to " make things better " to " protect " us the

worse it will continue to get. as I see it the only difference

between being shot in the head with a .44 magnum and a 10 caliber

semi auto is the size of the bullet, the outcome is exactly the same

DEAD. So whether its under the democrat or the republican the

result is the same. More govt, more govt, more govt, more govt and

there is an inverse relationship between govt size and intrusiveness

when compared with personal freedom and the ability to act in

accordance with your own best judgement. Sorry but I should be able

to walk down the street any time of day, with my gay friend,

carrying a gun on our way to buy Raw milk from the black farmer who

sets his own prices and is unregulated by a govt that could care

less what I write in my email or watch on my tv, etc...

This is way off topic we should probably stop...:-) the banter has

been fun though.

DMM

> Mike-

>

> > you can't be short sighted enought to possibly think this has

> >anything at all to do with party, do you?

>

> With all due respect, I absolutely do. On civil liberties -- and

forced

> vaccination is definitely a civil liberty issue -- I'll take the

Democratic

> party any day of the week. Same for liability. It's the

Republicans who

> are trying to immunize all their buddies from product liability,

not the

> Democrats. I think it's very telling that the HSA vote split

right down

> party lines. It was the Democrats who were trying to preserve a

few of our

> rights, not the Republicans.

>

> Now, that said, I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect. Far,

far from

> it. On some issues, like raw grassfed milk, there might not even

be any

> effective difference, even if the Republicans are probably

friendlier to

> big agriculture. And I have a long laundry list of gripes with

both

> parties. In the last Senate election I voted for NY's Green party

> candidate. He was a farmer and was in favor of sustainable

agriculture,

> family farms, and all kinds of issues dear to my heart. Of course

it

> didn't do a damn bit of good, and I've since concluded that the

Green party

> has been hijacked by vegetarians and PETA, so what it really boils

down to

> is that on a lot of issues, we don't have a party, and by " we " I

mean we

> people who want sustainable, organic, biodynamic agriculture with

all kinds

> of great animal fats and healthy, fertile soil -- and so on and so

> on. These issues are pretty much completely outside of mainstream

> political discourse, so neither party is paying them much

> attention. Though I do dream of a day when the GOP goes to bat

for statins

> and the Democrats fight for Atkins. That wouldn't be perfect, but

it would

> be something. <g>

>

> >Last I checked these two are frick and

> >frack, two sides of the very same coin the only difference is they

> >can't agree on how and where the gov't should be more intrusive.

>

> I understand this POV, honestly, but it's just not accurate. The

Democrats

> have definitely moved to the right, but the Republicans have moved

even

> further to the right. Back in Nixon's day, Nixon was considered a

> right-winger, but nowadays a lot of his domestic policies would be

too far

> to the left even for the Dems to touch.

>

> > I

> >wish that someday the american public would remove the pillowcase

> >that has been pulled over its collective head and realize there is

> >not a single democrat or republican (sans ron paul) who could

give a

> >rats #!* about us.

>

> Hey, I'm with you, but IMO the last person who *really* cared

about working

> people was Senator Wellstone. I don't think he knew much

about health

> and diet, but he genuinely cared.

>

> >I don't

> >know about you but I am far more concerned about my dem/rep driven

> >gov't than I am of any potential/real or imagined terrorist.

>

> Again, I'm with you all the way -- but I also have my

> disagreements. Terrorism is a real threat. I live in NYC, so I

got a

> pretty good view of that. We can't forget that. But again, as

much as I'm

> disgusted by both parties, I think there's a dramatic difference

between

> them. Bush is going after Iraq while Osama is still out there. I

mean,

> WTF? How about some damn priorities! And Ashcroft, the worst

threat to

> civil liberties in modern memory, is Bush's creature. I'm not

saying

> everything would be hunky dory under the Democrats. Far from it.

But

> they'd be a lot less bad, including in ways that are very relevant

to this

> list.

>

> But all this raises a larger question: what can we do,

politically? I just

> renewed my WAPF membership, and I know they lobby Congress, but

are they at

> all effective, or is that lobbying presently a waste of time?

Would they

> need much more money to even make a ripple?

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Belinda

I only have one thing to say to you on this, stop passing judgement

and Read The Bill!

Then and only then will you be qualified to make such a statement.

DMM

> In a message dated 11/20/02 6:56:39 PM Central Standard Time,

> dkemnitz2000@y... writes:

>

> > ---Belinda, have you seen www.aapsonline.org? There's a lot of

info

> > there. Dennis

>

>

> I don't believe all the hysteria about the bill is warrented. It

just sounds

> like another Y2K to me.

>

> Belinda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kat,

I have obviously not committed the entire bill to memory, however I

don't recall ANY distinctions being made. It would appear from what

I recall that it would be expected that everyone would want to and

be able to and be mandated to be vaccinated. Regardless of history.

Keep in mind the bill as most is not written in english its written

in double speak legal ease so it is certainly possible that it may

discuss that but I saw no such statements.

DMM

> Hi DMM,

>

> I cannot find any information on those who have already been

vaccinated, and

> most people who are over 40 have already been vaccinated. Are they

> proposing that we be vaccinated again?

>

> Kat

> http://www.katking.com

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <bilherbs@a...>

> < @y...>

> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:01 PM

> Subject: Re: Re: *sigh* it's all over-- HSA

>

>

> > In a message dated 11/20/02 12:38:57 PM Central Standard Time,

> > mmarasco@c... writes:

> >

> > > I obviously took some literary license in my writing however

the

> > > bill mandates that should a small pox incident occur a state

of

> > > emergency will be declared and each citizen will be mandated

to be

> > > vaccinated under threat of penalty of imprisonment, property

seizure

> > > or both. There is no exemption or exclusion for religious,

medical

> > > or philosophical objection. Read it and weep.

> > >

> > > DMM

> > >

> >

> > What I understood was that it would be recommended that each

citizen be

> > vaccinated. What I'd like to see is the part about property

seizure and

> > imprisonment as I've not been able to find that anywhere but on

this

> group.

> >

> > Belinda

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately Belinda that is the problem. Too many folks taking

too much advice from too many folks. Read the bill and actually

draw your own conclusion. It is rather insulting for you to say one

is making mountains of molehills when you admittedly know nothing

(by not reading the bill and accepting someone elses opinion on it)

about the topic.

> In a message dated 11/20/02 9:00:15 PM Central Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > Belinda

> >

> > I only have one thing to say to you on this, stop passing

judgement

> > and Read The Bill!

> >

> > Then and only then will you be qualified to make such a

statement.

> >

> > DMM

> >

> >

>

> Not going to read the bill. Have a few friends who have already

done that as

> they were very upset about all this going on. They are convinced

that ya'll

> are making mountains out of mole hills and until somebody proves

otherwise

> I'm going to agree with them.

>

> Belinda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Janet Reno was better than Ashcroft? Gimme a

>break.

Janet Reno was horrible, but yes, I'd absolutely take her over

Ashcroft any day of the week and twice on Sunday. There's just no comparison.

>Anyone who thinks that these people are anything

>but promoters of varying ideologies that ALL fall under the banner

>of bigger more intrusive government has their eyes closed.

Well, tell me this, Mike. Do you think toxic chemicals should be

regulated? Because I think complaints about government fall into two

categories. The first I'd call legitimate -- complaints about regulation

where government has been corrupted and special interests have managed to

secure regulation in their favor. Bans on raw milk would definitely fit

this bill. But the second is a real problem, and it's when people complain

about regulation that stops them from doing bad things. Like dumping toxic

waste in rivers.

>Lots of people I speak with agree to varying degrees yet the

>overwhelming consciousness is exactly as described above.

And again, I absolutely agree. Just look at Enron and corn subsidies and

the AHA and the NIH and everything else. It's terrible. I'm just saying

that the lesser of two evils is a _lot_ less evil.

>This is way off topic we should probably stop...:-) the banter has

>been fun though.

Yes and no. (I bet you didn't see that coming from me, huh? <g>) As far

as Osama goes, and even civil rights as a general topic, yeah, it's offi

topic, but raw grassfed milk and fat-laden eating have definite political

dimensions, and we can't just go off by ourselves and assume we'll be left

alone. We've got to fight the good fight, whether or not we can win it.

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> A Democratic attempt to block protection for vaccine manufacturers lost

52-47

And why shouldn't it have? Am I the only one who thinks that protecting the

vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits makes perfect sense? They're not

claiming that the vaccines are perfectly safe--it's a well-known fact that

there are rare but serious and potentially fatal complications. If the

government, knowing this, forcibly inoculates everyone, then why should the

manufacturers of the vaccines be held responsible, not only for illnesses

actually caused by the vaccination, but also by frivolous lawsuits from

anyone and everyone who can plausibly (to a group of twelve laymen) claim

that his completely unrelated illness was caused by it?

I'm no Republican (as I see it, their only redeeming quality is that they

aren't Democrats), but I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats aren't the

knights in shining armor here. This isn't about protecting those who suffer

complications from the vaccine--the HSA already has a measure to establish a

fund to compensate them. The only reason the Democrats tried to kill the

protection for the vaccine manufacturers was that they wanted to throw a

bone to the lawyers. A lot of people like to attribute Republican policies

to the " fact " that they're owned by corporations (big ones, of

course--they're the evil ones!), but it's no less true that Democrats are in

the back pockets of unions and lawyers. In fact, it's probably even more

true, since donations from businesses are typically split 60-40, while

Democrats get 90% of union contributions and about 2/3 of contributions from

lawyers.

This is, of course, in no way an endorsement of the rest of the HSA.

Berg

[Guest guest]

ummm.....explain to me why manufacturers who make a product which is

unsafe should not be prosecuted? Explain to me why this product is

even allowed to be manufactured and used? Explain to me why they

shouldn't research and test to come up with a safe product?

The complications with vaccines are underreported, and generally

ignored or covered up when they are reported. The " Frivolous

lawsuits " claim is a copout, and used because the manufacturers don't

want to take responsibility for what they are producing.

And both government and manufacturers should be held responsible for

the ill effects of forced innoculation, as they ARE the responsible

parties. What is hard to understand about this?

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <ChrisMasterjohn@a...>

>

>

> > A Democratic attempt to block protection for vaccine

manufacturers lost

> 52-47

>

> And why shouldn't it have? Am I the only one who thinks that

protecting the

> vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits makes perfect sense? They're not

> claiming that the vaccines are perfectly safe--it's a well-known

fact that

> there are rare but serious and potentially fatal complications. If

the

> government, knowing this, forcibly inoculates everyone, then why

should the

> manufacturers of the vaccines be held responsible, not only for

illnesses

> actually caused by the vaccination, but also by frivolous lawsuits

from

> anyone and everyone who can plausibly (to a group of twelve laymen)

claim

> that his completely unrelated illness was caused by it?

>

> I'm no Republican (as I see it, their only redeeming quality is

that they

> aren't Democrats), but I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats

aren't the

> knights in shining armor here. This isn't about protecting those

who suffer

> complications from the vaccine--the HSA already has a measure to

establish a

> fund to compensate them. The only reason the Democrats tried to

kill the

> protection for the vaccine manufacturers was that they wanted to

throw a

> bone to the lawyers. A lot of people like to attribute Republican

policies

> to the " fact " that they're owned by corporations (big ones, of

> course--they're the evil ones!), but it's no less true that

Democrats are in

> the back pockets of unions and lawyers. In fact, it's probably even

more

> true, since donations from businesses are typically split 60-40,

while

> Democrats get 90% of union contributions and about 2/3 of

contributions from

> lawyers.

>

> This is, of course, in no way an endorsement of the rest of the HSA.

>

> Berg

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/20/02 9:19:30 PM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Unfortunately Belinda that is the problem. Too many folks taking

> too much advice from too many folks. Read the bill and actually

> draw your own conclusion. It is rather insulting for you to say one

> is making mountains of molehills when you admittedly know nothing

> (by not reading the bill and accepting someone elses opinion on it)

> about the topic.

>

I've known the people who have read the bill for well over 10 years, I don't

know you. This is why I'm asking you to point out where in the bill you have

found the death threats.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/02 1:00:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> And why shouldn't it have? Am I the only one who thinks that protecting the

> vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits makes perfect sense?

No, 52 Republicans agree with you, apparently. I bet Eli Lilly does too.

They're not>

> claiming that the vaccines are perfectly safe--it's a well-known fact that

> there are rare but serious and potentially fatal complications. If the

> government, knowing this, forcibly inoculates everyone, then why should the

> manufacturers of the vaccines be held responsible, not only for illnesses

> actually caused by the vaccination, but also by frivolous lawsuits from

> anyone and everyone who can plausibly (to a group of twelve laymen) claim

> that his completely unrelated illness was caused by it?

Why should the _citizens_ be held responsible for wrongful deaths and

wrongful injuries due to the virus, and wrongful injuries due to the mercury?

The partnership between the drug company and the government is obvious... if

Eli Lilly is truly opposing this be mandatory, then they shouldn't have

responsibility, but the government should. In absence of that opposition,

the government _and_ manufacturer should be held accountable.

If not, then it would be the citizen held accountable. Rights and

responsibilities go hand in hand. Without the RIGHT to decide whether to get

this vaccine, one shouldn't be bound with the RESPONSIBILITY to suffer the

consequences.

> I'm no Republican (as I see it, their only redeeming quality is that they

> aren't Democrats), but I think it's pretty obvious that Democrats aren't

> the

> knights in shining armor here.

No, they are a political party responding to political pressure from certain

groups that make up their traditional voter base, like public health groups.

This isn't about protecting those who suffer > complications from the

> vaccine--the HSA already has a measure to establish a

> fund to compensate them. The only reason the Democrats tried to kill the

> protection for the vaccine manufacturers was that they wanted to throw a

> bone to the lawyers.

That could be true, but I doubt it. I didn't see any campaigning against

this part of the bill by trial lawyers, but I saw a VERY active campaign on

the part of public health groups. Mercola opposed it and his list alone has

I think a couple million people on it. Public health groups overwhelmingly

vote for democrats-- and so do trial lawyers-- so the Democrats are likely to

respond to either. But I don't see any evidence trial lawyers were

campagining against this one.

A lot of people like to attribute Republican policies

> to the " fact " that they're owned by corporations (big ones, of

> course--they're the evil ones!), but it's no less true that Democrats are

> in

> the back pockets of unions and lawyers. In fact, it's probably even more

> true, since donations from businesses are typically split 60-40, while

> Democrats get 90% of union contributions and about 2/3 of contributions

> from

> lawyers.

Well, fine, but I didn't make any political statement, I was just reporting

the news on how it went, since the bill was being discussed on this list,

specifically the vaccine issue. While I do oppose the vaccine part, I didn't

_say_ that in the email, and I _certainly_ didn't make any statement

supporting or opposing either party.

Moreover, the union contribution part is just statistically inaccurate,

because corporations make 80% of the political contributions. So unions

might overwhelmingly contribute to Democrats, but the _amount_ of money they

are contributing is _much_ smaller. Still, the Democrats are in the pocket

of corporations and big money. That's no secret. The Republicans are the

Business Party, and the Democrats are the Big Everything Party. Big

Business, Big Labor, Big Government. Either way, Big Business tends to win

out in the end, although Republicans are probably a little more sensitive to

little business than the Dems.

> This is, of course, in no way an endorsement of the rest of the HSA.

>

Well, we agree on that one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

As a private business matter I agree with you 100%. However these

companies operating in the private sector make themselves culpable

by their affiliation with the govt on the issue. Realize that Eli

Lilly wasn't just off in their labs producing a product and the govt

said we'd like to buy some pleas. Eli Lilly is for lack of a better

way to describe it a federally subsidized program and as a result

make themselves liable. Private and Public sector issues are two

separate entities and are held to different standards. It is a

consumers job to verify that what they are buying is up to snuff and

a company should be able to produce a product that may not be the

best if the consumer wants it. However besides being " in bed " with

the govt eliminating their " private " standing, they also knowingly

produce a product that has a very high rate of " malfunction " yes if

you are going to engage in commerce and knowingly damage people you

have culpability. A perfect small scale example would be my

chiropractic practice. I've been in practice for almost 10 years,

have a great reputation and thousands have gotten well at my hand

does that mean if 1% of my patients are maimed or killed by my

recommendations or treatments I am not culpable. I realize you'll

likely say that the govt bought product from e lilly and that's not

e lilly's fault however they forfeit that distinction when they

become a govt subsidy. If Eli Lilly just made vaccines and sold

them in the marketplace then I'd agree with you however they don't

do that and therefore do not deserve that standard.

DMM

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: <ChrisMasterjohn@a...>

> >

> >

> > > A Democratic attempt to block protection for vaccine

> manufacturers lost

> > 52-47

> >

> > And why shouldn't it have? Am I the only one who thinks that

> protecting the

> > vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits makes perfect sense? They're

not

> > claiming that the vaccines are perfectly safe--it's a well-known

> fact that

> > there are rare but serious and potentially fatal complications.

If

> the

> > government, knowing this, forcibly inoculates everyone, then why

> should the

> > manufacturers of the vaccines be held responsible, not only for

> illnesses

> > actually caused by the vaccination, but also by frivolous

lawsuits

> from

> > anyone and everyone who can plausibly (to a group of twelve

laymen)

> claim

> > that his completely unrelated illness was caused by it?

> >

> > I'm no Republican (as I see it, their only redeeming quality is

> that they

> > aren't Democrats), but I think it's pretty obvious that

Democrats

> aren't the

> > knights in shining armor here. This isn't about protecting those

> who suffer

> > complications from the vaccine--the HSA already has a measure to

> establish a

> > fund to compensate them. The only reason the Democrats tried to

> kill the

> > protection for the vaccine manufacturers was that they wanted to

> throw a

> > bone to the lawyers. A lot of people like to attribute

Republican

> policies

> > to the " fact " that they're owned by corporations (big ones, of

> > course--they're the evil ones!), but it's no less true that

> Democrats are in

> > the back pockets of unions and lawyers. In fact, it's probably

even

> more

> > true, since donations from businesses are typically split 60-40,

> while

> > Democrats get 90% of union contributions and about 2/3 of

> contributions from

> > lawyers.

> >

> > This is, of course, in no way an endorsement of the rest of the

HSA.

> >

> > Berg

[Guest guest]

Here is a collection of short articles on the HSA debacle. Most

were written before it was passed however the sources range from

pristine to just ok however the content is good.

Ron is a congressman from texas who is a friend of our family

and it has been through both actually reading the bill and my

conversations with him that have clearly depicted to me the problems

surrounding this bill, particularly from a mandated vaccine

perspective.

enjoy.

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/homeland.htm