sigh it's all over-- HSA

November 21, 2002

> 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.

++++++++++++Like I said making distinction between getting shot

in the head with a .44 mag or a 10cal semi auto is just plain

drivel. The result is the same. dead. You are not going to say oh

but I feel better being shot with the smaller one. Reno or Ashcroft

the result is the same. Unacceptable and Dead.

>

> >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.

+++++++++++++++++Use history as your guide thousands of years of

human history and this has been proven time and time and time again

the more you rely on govt to " protect " the more " protect " you will

need... from them. This is NOT just my opinon, look at the history

of governing and politics throughout human history. This is a

lesson unlearned. Whoever said if you do not learn from history you

are doomed to repeat it was 100% correct, especially in this regard.

Why do we have massive multinational corporations dumping toxic

waste who need to be regulated in the first place... because they

are allowed to blur the lines between public and private sectors and

are essentially subsidized by the " guvment " to varying degrees. We

must be pragmatic and understand that people will break rules,

people will dump stuff they should not, some will get away with it

and some won't. Its should simply be illegal to do so and therefore

the perp. should be prosecuted. That doesn't require miles of red

tape and massive govt regulation. The illegality of poisoning

somebody elses property is unquestioned however it shouldn't require

the govt to be more intrusive to enforce a law against a crime of

commission. A great example of this is hate crimes legislation.

What's the point? A dead gay person and a dead white person and a

dead black person and a dead ... are all the same. Dead and if they

were murdered the crime is all the same. Felony. Why is this so

complicated. The toxic dumping is no different. I didn't say there

shouldn't be laws, I am simply saying that more govt is bad for

people. While I completely disagree with the distinctions you make

between dems and reps, even if your distinctions were correct. Who

cares. If the dems held every public office in the entire country

the govt would still be WAY too big, WAY to intrusive, WAY to

corrupt and WAY TOO EVIL! This notion (and paul you are definitely

not alone in this) that one ideology is at least less evil than the

other (obviously the reps would make the same argument as you the

other way) is just absurd. Evil is evil. And intrusive govt is

intrusive govt and should not be tolerated for any reason.

>

> >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.

============.44 mag vs. 10cal sa is still Dead!

>

> >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.

++++++++++I agree, I just prefer to be in a fight that can be won

and as I see it as long as our people continue to split hairs over

who is less evil and don't start finding it ALL completely

unacceptable winning is out of the question.

DMM

>

> -

November 21, 2002

Death threats???

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

> mmarasco@c... 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

>

November 21, 2002

-

>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?

If the government spontaneously decided to take a known defective product

and forcibly apply it to everyone, then there'd be some argument for

partially indemnifying the company against damages from that

product. However, that known defective product is _already on the market_,

so Eli Lilly is _already knowingly harming the public_. Furthermore, this

is crony capitalism, not public health policy. Bush and the GOP are

throwing their buddies in industry a huge, juicy bone. Just think how much

revenue the vaccine will generate with mandatory universal

vaccination! There are two culpable parties here: the vaccine manufacturer

and the government.

>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.

No, as said, the lawyers weren't the ones lobbying against this, it

was various public health interests. There were a lot of petitions signed

against the vaccination provisions in the bill.

>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.

Again, this is simply inaccurate. Business, particularly big business,

swings much more dramatically towards the GOP, and the GOP gets much, much

more money.

-

November 21, 2002

In a message dated 11/21/02 11:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Furthermore, this

> is crony capitalism, not public health policy.

That's a good point. It's _crony_ capitalism-- not only not public health

policy, but very anti-capitalist itself. It's essentially old-fashioned

mercantilism, completely anti-thetical to laissez faire, the kind of economic

policy Adam had railed against in his day. The free market principles

can only operate on utter transparancy and utter liability, with government

only involved in enforcing the rule of law equally to all players in the

market. A corporation itself is a violation of this because it limits

liability to a fictional entity and absolves all individual human players. A

government mandating a product be bought violates it the same way The Queen

of Spain mandated all wear wool hats at all times or all eat fish on Friday.

A government absolving the manufacturer of said product of liability chooses

who to enforce the rule of law on and who not to, in direct relationship to

the sale of a product.

I'm no free market fanatic, but I'd take it any day of this British-style

mercantilist economic policy. Despite the need for regulation for public

health, I think the state of public health would be superior with 100%

laissez faire to what it is now. According to free market principles, it is

the government's job to enforce transparency, b/c free market cannot operate

without it. That means the government should be enforcing labelling for all

ingredients on all products, genetically modified organisms, trans-fat

content, etc. If subsidies were stopped and true transparency were enforced,

most of these big corporations that are out operating against public health

wouldn't exist for a few more minutes.

Chris

November 21, 2002

In a message dated 11/21/02 11:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Again, this is simply inaccurate. Business, particularly big business,

> swings much more dramatically towards the GOP, and the GOP gets much, much

> more money.

I'd be careful to exaggerate on this one. Big Business gives more to the

GOP, but not dramatically. Despite their humorous methods, Billionaires for

Bush or Gore showed this pretty well with charts and documentation in the

last campaign. The general practice seems to be to give lots and lots of

money to _both_ parties (yes, the big corporations tend to give out to

_both_parties from the same corp), to ensure that whoever wins will give them

favors. They just tend to give out more to the GOP b/c they know they'll get

_more_ favors, but they certainly don't slight the Democrats at all.

Chris

November 21, 2002

As far as I can tell, the bill doesn't explicitly give the right to gov't to

have _mandatory_ vaccination, but it also doesn't give anyone right to

exemptions. It just vaguely says the Sec of H & HS has the right to make a

declaration that certain portions of the population should be vaccinated

within a certain time. It's hard to tell exactly what it means, but it seems

that there is a presumption in the whole thing that the persons are being

directed by the gov't to get the vaccine, not simply being advised to get it,

but it is very unclear.

I think the fear of thep ublic health groups is that there aren't these

specific preservations of the persons rights, so that the law can easily be

interpreted in a way that violates them.

Chris

November 21, 2002

Hi All,

I just called my senator's office ( Sarbanes - Dem - MD) and

spoke with a staff member assigned to answer the HSA

questions/comments.

She said that it is NOT true that the bill includes a part giving the

government the right to require mandatory vaccinations. I asked her

if she was 100% certain about that. She said she's 99.9% certain and

that she " never likes to say [she's] 100% certain. "

Sen. Sarbanes didn't vote for the bill because of the very " limited

liability " of the vaccine manufacturers.

If you want to check it out for yourself, it's easy to find your

senators' phone numbers thru a web search.

November 21, 2002

In a message dated 11/21/02 10:24:38 AM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> Death threats???

>

Wasn't it you who posted that folks would be vaccinated at gun point?

Belinda

November 21, 2002

In a message dated 11/21/02 7:57:12 PM Central Standard Time,

mmarasco@... writes:

> If you think I am making this up go here

> http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/what_you_need_to_know.htm

>

> Again I apologize for my lack of clarity.

>

> DMM

>

And I guess I'll have to apologize for not being able to find the bill

wording on any of the sites mentioned here.

Belinda

November 21, 2002

I'm taking a short break from trying to write a 20 page research paper due

tomorrow, so I don't have time to look up the link, but if you go to

mercola.com and look in last weeks newsletter, the link to the govenrment PDF

file is in there. It's huge, the vaccination part starts on page 74.

I don't think you'll be satisfied if you are looking for explicit wording

that allows such-and-such. It's very vague and allows for the declaration to

be called and simply lacks protections. Between FEMA and all those other

crazy things, the mechanisms are already in place for virtual dictatorship in

this country, all it would take is enough fear to generate the political

tolerance in the populace. The last time there was a major war people were

locked up because of their race; this time it isn't a world war (yet) but

we've been attacked on our own soil. The potential for that kind of fear is

a real threat.

The law has a lot of restrictions on who can sue the government. For

example, if you catch small pox, you have to prove that you caught it from

someone who had the vaccine administered *correctly* by the *correct person. "

If all the sudden a mandate goes out, and a health care provider doesn't

have enough " qualified persons " to do all the vaccinations, and they use

someone who is *technically* unqualified, and you catch small pox from that

person, b/c you either weren't part of the designated group to be vaccinated,

or you choose not to if it was voluntary, then you have no recourse against

the government b/c of the law, nor any recourse against the provider b/c of

the protections under the law, nor any recourse against the vaccine

manufacturer, b/c of same protections.

So the risk of spreading small pox THROUGH the vaccination is obviously great

enough that the government is explicitly limiting its own liability for when

it happens. In other words, since they plan on vaccinating certain military

and other personnel soon, with no threat of small pox terrorism, by the

gov't's own plans this will release small pox into the populace, and then

people will die. (would that make our own gov't a bioterrorist?)

And when that person's case is disputed as to whether they caught small pox

from the right person to allow government liability, that person will have no

recourse to compensation whatsoever. That sounds great.

And if the chances of the vaccine _causing_ a smallpox outbreak are so

minimal, why is the gov't protecting itself against it?

Chris

November 22, 2002

Chris

" the Sec of H & HS has the right to make a

> declaration that certain portions of the population should be

vaccinated

> within a certain time. "

I have read enough govt legislation to know that vague is

intentional and not so the private sector can interpret it the way

it would like. Its vague like so much other legislation that has

come before. It means that in the event of a state of emergency

declaration US citizens will be told what to do and how to do it and

there will be NO legislation to refute the mandate, particularly in

the middle of a declared state of emergency.

Some will say that is an over reaction I say to those folks they

need to pull the pillowcase off their head and get some fresh oxygen

to their brain. US history both very recent and very distant

history clearly demonstrates what can be expected in the event of

such a declaration. How are they going to word the legislation " we

are going to vaccinate everyone regardless of their objections and

we don't care who's killed or maimed we just care about giving the

impression that we are responding swiftly and we have everything

under control. " Of course not. This is how legislation has been

written, especially for the last 70 years. It is vague so as to

allow the its implementation to be enacted according to the agenda

that created it.

I contrary to how it may appear, am not an alarmist. Someone

compared this to Y2K. I might remind them that Y2K was a theory at

best and that might be an insult to all other theories. This is not

theory this is another loose and vague piece of legislation that our

govt will use to satisfy its agenda. I wish this were not true but

any suggestion to the contrary is just wishful thinking. This is

what they do and how they do it only a small amount of attention

paid is required.

Realize that the way such legislation is enforced is on a local

basis. For the states that have adopted it the Model State

Emergency Health Powers Act is how it is executed. This is not Y2K

this is actual legislation that States have already passed or are

currently considering. See

http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/what_you_need_to_know.htm

for info on how the legislation is carried out locally. Believe it

or don't.

DMM

> As far as I can tell, the bill doesn't explicitly give the right

to gov't to

> have _mandatory_ vaccination, but it also doesn't give anyone

right to

> exemptions. It just vaguely says the Sec of H & HS has the right to

make a

> declaration that certain portions of the population should be

vaccinated

> within a certain time. It's hard to tell exactly what it means,

but it seems

> that there is a presumption in the whole thing that the persons

are being

> directed by the gov't to get the vaccine, not simply being advised

to get it,

> but it is very unclear.

>

> I think the fear of thep ublic health groups is that there aren't

these

> specific preservations of the persons rights, so that the law can

easily be

> interpreted in a way that violates them.

>

> Chris

>

November 22, 2002

I've been following this with interest. Here's my take. Having once been

anti-vaccinations I do not think that way anymore. I think innoculations are

one of the successes of modern medicine and are the reason we don't have

opportunistic organizms wiping out cities anymore. And unfortunately there

are human beings in this world (of all creeds and nationalities) who are

insanely destructive enough to start an epidemic if they can get their hands

on the materials. So as much as it gives me the creeps to have the

government able to forcibly inject something into my body, I just don't see a

way around it. If smallpox was purposely unleashed and an epidemic

occured, and a substantial percentage of people refused the vaccination, that

could have deadly effects on everyone. With more exposure the virus would

mutate faster, sick people would be in the hospitals, the vaccine could lose its

effectiveness. This may sound too 'doomsday' to be believed by us

comfortably modern folk. But the fact is epidemics have swept civilizations to

horrific effects in the not-too-distant past.

That said, as natural health advocates, we should be focusing on the

PRODUCTION of the vaccines. I am a lot more fearful of getting mercury,

formaldehyde and aluminum injected in me, than I am of the weakened

pathogens. By taking care of myself my immune system can take the

biological hit. But there is nothing my body can do to protect against heavy

metals and inorganic compounds in my bloodstream.

Therefore instead of anti-vaccine I would like to focus on SAFE vaccinations

without the dangerous preservatives. If anyone has more info about the

feasibility of that I'd love to know.

Daphne

> In a message dated 11/21/02 11:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Idol@c... writes:

>

> > Furthermore, this

> > is crony capitalism, not public health policy.

>

> That's a good point. It's _crony_ capitalism-- not only not public health

> policy, but very anti-capitalist itself. It's essentially old-fashioned

> mercantilism, completely anti-thetical to laissez faire, the kind of economic

> policy Adam had railed against in his day. The free market principles

> can only operate on utter transparancy and utter liability, with government

> only involved in enforcing the rule of law equally to all players in the

> market. A corporation itself is a violation of this because it limits

> liability to a fictional entity and absolves all individual human players. A

> government mandating a product be bought violates it the same way The

Queen

> of Spain mandated all wear wool hats at all times or all eat fish on Friday.

> A government absolving the manufacturer of said product of liability

chooses

> who to enforce the rule of law on and who not to, in direct relationship to

> the sale of a product.

>

> I'm no free market fanatic, but I'd take it any day of this British-style

> mercantilist economic policy. Despite the need for regulation for public

> health, I think the state of public health would be superior with 100%

> laissez faire to what it is now. According to free market principles, it is

> the government's job to enforce transparency, b/c free market cannot

operate

> without it. That means the government should be enforcing labelling for all

> ingredients on all products, genetically modified organisms, trans-fat

> content, etc. If subsidies were stopped and true transparency were

enforced,

> most of these big corporations that are out operating against public health

> wouldn't exist for a few more minutes.

>

> Chris

>

November 22, 2002

If smallpox was purposely unleashed and an epidemic

> occured, and a substantial percentage of people refused the

vaccination, that

> could have deadly effects on everyone.

===========this is an absurd argument. If the vaccine is as

effective as advertised the only people at risk would be the

unvaccinated. However if its not as effective as advertised then

your comments hold water and in that case there'd still be no reason

to vaccinate those who'd object because the the risks you site would

occur anyway.

+++++++++How can you justify forcibly vaccinating a human being who

DOES NOT WANT TO BE because they know for a irrefutable fact that

for X number of vaccines given X number of recipients will die. How

do you justify sacrificing that one persons life for others against

their will?

+++++++++++You are perfectly entitled to your views on vaccines and

you may receive all the vaccines you'd like but to sacrifice " a few "

for everyone elses safety is about as immoral a position as I could

imagine.

===============Lastly on the smallpox issue is the World Health

Organization has an effective protocol for dealing with small pox

outbreaks such as the most recent ones that occured years ago in

india and africa. And their protocol demonstrates that a) small pox

is HARD to get. the ONLY effective means of dealing with it is to

quarrantine those exposed, not vaccinate. The only

effective/appropriate use of the vaccine is in the immediate

vicinity of the exposure not mass innoculation. This is not MY

opinion this is the WHO smallpox protocol that has been used

repeatedly and successfully.

>

> That said, as natural health advocates, we should be focusing on

the

> PRODUCTION of the vaccines. I am a lot more fearful of getting

mercury,

> formaldehyde and aluminum injected in me, than I am of the

weakened

> pathogens. By taking care of myself my immune system can take the

> biological hit.

+++++++++++If this is true why does it not apply to the actual

virus. If this is true why do you need a vaccine?

But there is nothing my body can do to protect against heavy

> metals and inorganic compounds in my bloodstream.

>

> Therefore instead of anti-vaccine I would like to focus on SAFE

vaccinations

> without the dangerous preservatives. If anyone has more info

about the

> feasibility of that I'd love to know.

++++++++++++++The most important point here Daphne that I think you

have overlooked is that this has NOTHING to do with vaccines and

their value or effectiveness. This is about a government mandate

that will irrefutably guarantee the death and injure of American

citizens. I am simply suggesting that if one or two or 10,000 of

those americans would prefer to take their chances on their own and

not risk their lives by being vaccinated they must be given that

choice it is their life to lose not yours or anyone elses.

>

November 22, 2002

" 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. "

Belinda this is the quote you refer to I have pulled it out of

context. I did not think that anyone would take this literally.

However since you did I apologize for being so sarcastic as to be

taken too seriously.

My point is that the mandate forces vaccination under duress.

Meaning for those who do not cooperate they will be threatened with

imprisonment and or property seizure (this is literal). These

things are usually enforced by somebody carrying a gun such as law

enforcement. I did not mean to imply that someone would be standing

at a clinic threatening to shoot those who didn't receive a vaccine.

If you think I am making this up go here

http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/what_you_need_to_know.htm

Again I apologize for my lack of clarity.

DMM

> Wasn't it you who posted that folks would be vaccinated at gun

point?

>

> Belinda

>

November 22, 2002

Masterjohn stated what the HSA bill stated and the lack of clarity.

The link discusses the manner in which most states would carry out

the enactment of the bill. With a little effort you can see as much

or as little detail on it as you'd like.

> In a message dated 11/21/02 7:57:12 PM Central Standard Time,

> mmarasco@c... writes:

>

> > If you think I am making this up go here

> > http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/what_you_need_to_know.htm

> >

> > Again I apologize for my lack of clarity.

> >

> > DMM

> >

>

> And I guess I'll have to apologize for not being able to find the

bill

> wording on any of the sites mentioned here.

>

> Belinda

>

November 22, 2002

One reason is because is they were allowed to be sued then they would go out of

the vaccine making business and then who do you think would do it instead? (if

you can't guess, it would be our wonderful government who cares so much about

it's citizens, that would be even scarier).

Michele

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

From: Margie McArthur

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:59 PM

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

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?

November 22, 2002

I totally agree with this. That said, my husband is a police officer and would

probably be forced to have a smallpox vaccine, so I am wondering short of

quitting his job what could he do to minimize the effects of the vaccine if it

came to that?

Michele

++++++++++++++The most important point here Daphne that I think you

have overlooked is that this has NOTHING to do with vaccines and

their value or effectiveness. This is about a government mandate

that will irrefutably guarantee the death and injure of American

citizens. I am simply suggesting that if one or two or 10,000 of

those americans would prefer to take their chances on their own and

not risk their lives by being vaccinated they must be given that

choice it is their life to lose not yours or anyone elses.

>

November 22, 2002

Actually I don't find having the government make the vaccines scarier than

private companies. Much of the really important research is done by the

government and then given to companies to market. Don't buy into the

government can't do anything right stuff. That is just propoganda. There

are lots of scientists and engineers working for the government, NIH, NASA,

and believe it or not DOD that are extremely talented. And they can do

their jobs without being encumbered by bottm line politics and having to

show quarterly profit margins. There is less pressure to take risky

shortcuts in order to increase profits although they are also subject to

budget pressures. Government at its best can do many things for a fraction

of the cost of corporations because there are no shareholders or CEO's to

pay. This is a huge threat to big business. It is even considered unfair

competition for a governemnt agency to bid against a contractor. Now of

course not everything is roses and there are many problems in government

but just don't get too carried away by the bleating of the " gov'mnt is bad "

mongers! The notion that people working for the governmnent are stupid

while people who work for corporations are smart is just silly. You There

is talent and dead weight and everything in between in both places. Also

the folks making policy decisions will be the same whether it is governemnt

or private companies making the product. And another huge difference in

government and private industry is that if it is not profitable than

private industry won't do it. They can't or they will go out of business.

However that is what government is for, to provide the necessary services

even if they are not profitable. I mean can you imagine if we had to take

up a collection to pay the military? How many bombers do you think they

could buy. Or how about a private fire department or police force. Or maybe

we can all chip in and build a freeway. What we need is to take back our

government in the form of election reform and not do away with it. We need

government to be a steward of our resources and appropriately regulate

industry or industry will run roughshod over us.

Sorry for being so long winded.

I now step off the soapbox.

Irene

At 07:58 PM 11/21/02, you wrote:

>One reason is because is they were allowed to be sued then they would go

>out of the vaccine making business and then who do you think would do it

>instead? (if you can't guess, it would be our wonderful government who

>cares so much about it's citizens, that would be even scarier).

>

>Michele

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

> From: Margie McArthur

>

> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:59 PM

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

>

> 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?

>

November 22, 2002

, in answer to the points you made:

1. If the virus were to gain a stronghold in the human populace it could

mutate to the point where the vaccine is no longer effective. Biology 101.

> ===========this is an absurd argument. If the vaccine is as

> effective as advertised the only people at risk would be the

> unvaccinated. However if its not as effective as advertised then

> your comments hold water and in that case there'd still be no reason

> to vaccinate those who'd object because the the risks you site would

> occur anyway.

2. They won't vaccinate people with compromised immune systems. They will

minimize the risk to the best of their ability. I don't like our goverment

either

but I don't believe they're evil. Clearly, this is not an easy moral question

but

given the population density of modern civilization, we humans are like a

huge biological cesspool and a virulent epidemic could wipe out masses. So

this is one of the VERY FEW areas where maybe the good of society should

take precedence over the rights of the individual. To put it in more practial

terms, most people are forced by economic necessity to drive to work, and

the risk of highway driving is probably greater than that of vaccination.

> +++++++++How can you justify forcibly vaccinating a human being who

> DOES NOT WANT TO BE because they know for a irrefutable fact that

> for X number of vaccines given X number of recipients will die. How

> do you justify sacrificing that one persons life for others against

> their will?

>

> +++++++++++You are perfectly entitled to your views on vaccines and

> you may receive all the vaccines you'd like but to sacrifice " a few "

> for everyone elses safety is about as immoral a position as I could

> imagine.

>

3. The logical extension of your argument below says we should wait until

people come down with the disease, then quarantine them, which means

denying them medical care and leaving them to die alone. Is that preferable

to mandatory vaccination? Wouldn't quarantine mean sacrificing the few for

the many? Also, you say vaccination is effective/appropriate in the

" immediate vicinity " of an outbreak. Now that might work in poor countries

where people don't travel much, but in the US, people move around the

country constantly. Besides, if you justify vaccinating in the 'vicinity' of an

outbreak, where do you draw the line where it becomes immoral to

vaccinate? Are we going to have gated communities where the rich and

unvaccinated people stay apart from everyone else?

> ===============Lastly on the smallpox issue is the World Health

> Organization has an effective protocol for dealing with small pox

> outbreaks such as the most recent ones that occured years ago in

> india and africa. And their protocol demonstrates that a) small pox

> is HARD to get. the ONLY effective means of dealing with it is to

> quarrantine those exposed, not vaccinate. The only

> effective/appropriate use of the vaccine is in the immediate

> vicinity of the exposure not mass innoculation. This is not MY

> opinion this is the WHO smallpox protocol that has been used

> repeatedly and successfully.

>

4. Because the vaccine contains either a dead pathogen which the immune

system forms antigens against, or a close relative of the pathogen, but not

the acutal virulent pathogen. That is why I can get a measles shot and not

get measles.

>

> +++++++++++If this is true why does it not apply to the actual

> virus. If this is true why do you need a vaccine?

>

(that was in response to my lines:)

> >

> > That said, as natural health advocates, we should be focusing on

> the

> > PRODUCTION of the vaccines. I am a lot more fearful of getting

> mercury,

> > formaldehyde and aluminum injected in me, than I am of the

> weakened

> > pathogens. By taking care of myself my immune system can take the

> > biological hit.

>

> But there is nothing my body can do to protect against heavy

> > metals and inorganic compounds in my bloodstream.

> >

> > Therefore instead of anti-vaccine I would like to focus on SAFE

> vaccinations

> > without the dangerous preservatives. If anyone has more info

> about the

> > feasibility of that I'd love to know.

>

5. What's written below is absolutely incorrect. I made the argument at the

outset that mandating vaccinations might be a necessary step to avoid a

major epidemic, since medical history has shown us that pathogens are

capable of drastically reducing human populations. And, if it's only 1-2 out of

10,000 who choose not to vaccinate, they are benefiting from everyone else's

shots, since their chance of exposure is greatly reduced by everyone else

being vaccinated. But I believe the risk from the innoculation itself is

miniscule. The health problems associated with vaccines are almost certainly

due to the aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde used as preservatives.

That's where I'd like to see A LOT more attention paid.

> ++++++++++++++The most important point here Daphne that I think you

> have overlooked is that this has NOTHING to do with vaccines and

> their value or effectiveness. This is about a government mandate

> that will irrefutably guarantee the death and injure of American

> citizens. I am simply suggesting that if one or two or 10,000 of

> those americans would prefer to take their chances on their own and

> not risk their lives by being vaccinated they must be given that

> choice it is their life to lose not yours or anyone elses.

> >

November 22, 2002

Michele, sorry about your husband having to be vaccinated against his will. I

do wonder why you chose to reproduce *only* the only the part of someone

else's post where he addresses me in a patronizing manner and

misrepresents what I wrote? To be fair, if you disagree with my arguments

you should refute my arguments, rather than quoting someone else doing so.

No offense meant.

Daphne

> I totally agree with this. That said, my husband is a police officer and would

probably be forced to have a smallpox vaccine, so I am wondering short of

quitting his job what could he do to minimize the effects of the vaccine if it

came to that?

>

> Michele