RE: Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

[Guest guest]

Carol, I too worry about having to get a smallpox injection...and I am going

to speak with my rheumy on the 20th about it. I just wonder if we have any

immunities in our systems if we had them while younger . I knowI had one as

an infant, then about 10 yrs old and then one more about 1979 just before

they stopped them being mandatory.....and I'm 50 now. Judy in AZ

[Guest guest]

I understand the fear with smallpox, but I have concerns regarding forced

immunizations. I understand the general idea is to protect the public at

large, rather than individuals, and that the cost to society of someone

being allowed to carry such a communicable disease is just too high. But it

does seem like a gross violation of personal freedoms. What about people

like many of us who are taking drugs to suppress our immune function? As I

understand it, the smallpox vaccine is a live vaccine and there are young

and healthy individuals in clinical trials right now that have to take days

off work because they develop a diluted form of the disease. Wouldn’t we

have a higher chance of developing full-blown smallpox or having other

complications? Has anyone spoken with their rheumatologist about this?

a, ?

Love to all,

Carol

[ ] Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

Immunizations

Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently approved

by the Senate and President Bush. What does this mean for Americans? It

means

that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now be forced to receive

immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical exemptions allowed -- and

refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and imprisonment. Moreover, as

it

stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies from potential liability

in

vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

protecting the population from impending bio-terrorism threats, and with a

promise that the special interest conditions, such as the one relating to

pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised early next year.

The concern is that corporate interests are overwhelmingly

influencing legislation in an already turbulent, post-9/11 environment,

raising

the questions of whose interests homeland security is serving, and does it

leave the public to fend for themselves?

Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even before

the passing of this new bill, with one of the most disconcerting aspects

being

the association of autism with pediatric vaccinations. The number of cases

of

autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the same time researchers

discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in many infant vaccines,

contained levels of mercury that were above those allowed by Environmental

Protection Agency guidelines.

Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury to cause

neural damage in children, many medical practitioners denied the

association.

However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal be removed from vaccine

formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines¹ safety and created some

public and political support against pharmaceutical companies.

The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other slew of illnesses

potentially linked to vaccinations will have no legal recourse against the

pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

A related bill that also potentially limited the freedom of

Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), was passed

in

December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the right to vaccinate

people,

enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property without any compensation and

ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency situations.

As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled the law

while 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed all or parts of it.

In

states where the law was passed, citizens will be charged with a crime if

they

refuse vaccinations.

The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of whether

vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the individual. This

violation

of freedom takes away our right to decide what is best for our own bodies

and

leaves it in the hands of the federal government, and the special interest

groups that potentially control it.

GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

[Guest guest]

Carol:

I recall hearing on the news a while back that people

with immune system disorders should not get the

smallpox vaccine for that very reason. I don't

remember if any other groups with medical problems

were also not to take it, but the people with aids

related diseases, hiv, or any auto immune system

disease were warned against it. I have not spoken to

my doctor about it because the subject of it has not

come up - she does advise the flu and pneumonia shots,

of course, and I have had those.

Kathe in CA

--- Carol <carol@...> wrote:

> I understand the fear with smallpox, but I have

> concerns regarding forced

> immunizations. I understand the general idea is to

> protect the public at

> large, rather than individuals, and that the cost to

> society of someone

> being allowed to carry such a communicable disease

> is just too high. But it

> does seem like a gross violation of personal

> freedoms. What about people

> like many of us who are taking drugs to suppress our

> immune function? As I

> understand it, the smallpox vaccine is a live

> vaccine and there are young

> and healthy individuals in clinical trials right now

> that have to take days

> off work because they develop a diluted form of the

> disease. Wouldn’t we

> have a higher chance of developing full-blown

> smallpox or having other

> complications? Has anyone spoken with their

> rheumatologist about this?

> a, ?

>

> Love to all,

> Carol

>

> [ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

> Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

>

> Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

> The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

> approved

> by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

> mean for Americans? It

> means

> that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

> be forced to receive

> immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

> exemptions allowed -- and

> refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

> imprisonment. Moreover, as

> it

> stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

> from potential liability

> in

> vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>

> The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

> protecting the population from impending

> bio-terrorism threats, and with a

> promise that the special interest conditions, such

> as the one relating to

> pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

> early next year.

>

> The concern is that corporate interests are

> overwhelmingly

> influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

> post-9/11 environment,

> raising

> the questions of whose interests homeland security

> is serving, and does it

> leave the public to fend for themselves?

>

> Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

> before

> the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

> disconcerting aspects

> being

> the association of autism with pediatric

> vaccinations. The number of cases

> of

> autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

> same time researchers

> discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

> many infant vaccines,

> contained levels of mercury that were above those

> allowed by Environmental

> Protection Agency guidelines.

>

> Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

> to cause

> neural damage in children, many medical

> practitioners denied the

> association.

> However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

> be removed from vaccine

> formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines¹

> safety and created some

> public and political support against pharmaceutical

> companies.

>

> The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

> poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

> slew of illnesses

> potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

> legal recourse against the

> pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>

> A related bill that also potentially limited the

> freedom of

> Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

> Act (MEHPA), was passed

> in

> December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

> right to vaccinate

> people,

> enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

> without any compensation and

> ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

> situations.

>

> As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

> the law

> while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

> passed all or parts of it.

> In

> states where the law was passed, citizens will be

> charged with a crime if

> they

> refuse vaccinations.

>

> The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

> whether

> vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

> individual. This

> violation

> of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

> best for our own bodies

> and

> leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

> and the special interest

> groups that potentially control it.

>

> GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carol,

I have MORE concerns that the drug companies are now absolved of any

responsibility that any vaccine causes. There are thousands of lawsuits

pending regarding mercury/thermasil in vaccines that are believed to cause

autism in children. So now that these drug companies can¹t be sued for any

damage the vaccine causes, what makes me feel warm and fuzzy that they will

be very cautious in the vaccine development?

It is also very upsetting that there is no medical exemptions. Reactions to

vaccines can cause death to someone with medical conditions. In that case,

I think I¹d rather go to jail and pay the fine. To me this is just another

special interest group in the government¹s pocketbook. I can agree that the

majority at large is who they are trying to protect. These drug companies

would make billions on a mandatory vaccine, yet they are not liable for

damages? So how can our government force us to take something that has the

potential to kill us? This is Homeland Security?

a

> I understand the fear with smallpox, but I have concerns regarding forced

> immunizations. I understand the general idea is to protect the public at

> large, rather than individuals, and that the cost to society of someone

> being allowed to carry such a communicable disease is just too high. But it

> does seem like a gross violation of personal freedoms. What about people

> like many of us who are taking drugs to suppress our immune function? As I

> understand it, the smallpox vaccine is a live vaccine and there are young

> and healthy individuals in clinical trials right now that have to take days

> off work because they develop a diluted form of the disease. Wouldn’t we

> have a higher chance of developing full-blown smallpox or having other

> complications? Has anyone spoken with their rheumatologist about this?

> a, ?

>

> Love to all,

> Carol

>

> [ ] Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

>

> Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

>

> The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently approved

> by the Senate and President Bush. What does this mean for Americans? It

> means

> that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now be forced to receive

> immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical exemptions allowed -- and

> refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and imprisonment. Moreover, as

> it

> stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies from potential liability

> in

> vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>

> The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

> protecting the population from impending bio-terrorism threats, and with a

> promise that the special interest conditions, such as the one relating to

> pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised early next year.

>

> The concern is that corporate interests are overwhelmingly

> influencing legislation in an already turbulent, post-9/11 environment,

> raising

> the questions of whose interests homeland security is serving, and does it

> leave the public to fend for themselves?

>

> Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even before

> the passing of this new bill, with one of the most disconcerting aspects

> being

> the association of autism with pediatric vaccinations. The number of cases

> of

> autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the same time researchers

> discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in many infant vaccines,

> contained levels of mercury that were above those allowed by Environmental

> Protection Agency guidelines.

>

> Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury to cause

> neural damage in children, many medical practitioners denied the

> association.

> However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal be removed from vaccine

> formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines¹ safety and created some

> public and political support against pharmaceutical companies.

>

> The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

> poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other slew of illnesses

> potentially linked to vaccinations will have no legal recourse against the

> pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>

> A related bill that also potentially limited the freedom of

> Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), was passed

> in

> December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the right to vaccinate

> people,

> enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property without any compensation and

> ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency situations.

>

> As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled the law

> while 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed all or parts of it.

> In

> states where the law was passed, citizens will be charged with a crime if

> they

> refuse vaccinations.

>

> The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of whether

> vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the individual. This

> violation

> of freedom takes away our right to decide what is best for our own bodies

> and

> leaves it in the hands of the federal government, and the special interest

> groups that potentially control it.

>

> GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kathe, that makes good sense to me. My rheumy also advises to get the flu

and pneumonia shots, and I've had mine, but he told me to double check that

they do not use a live vaccine. I don't think many (or any) do now. What

got me up in arms was that the article says that if the government deems it

necessary, we'd have to have the immunization - no medical exemptions

allowed. That's a scary thought, but then again I don't know the

credibility of the organization/person that wrote the article. She/he/they

are trying to persuade people to a certain viewpoint. It seems to me that

the government would realize that a large minority of people who would

become sick from their altered immune function would not be in the best

interest of the country.

Love and hugs,

Carol

[ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

> Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

>

> Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

> The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

> approved

> by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

> mean for Americans? It

> means

> that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

> be forced to receive

> immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

> exemptions allowed -- and

> refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

> imprisonment. Moreover, as

> it

> stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

> from potential liability

> in

> vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>

> The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

> protecting the population from impending

> bio-terrorism threats, and with a

> promise that the special interest conditions, such

> as the one relating to

> pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

> early next year.

>

> The concern is that corporate interests are

> overwhelmingly

> influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

> post-9/11 environment,

> raising

> the questions of whose interests homeland security

> is serving, and does it

> leave the public to fend for themselves?

>

> Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

> before

> the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

> disconcerting aspects

> being

> the association of autism with pediatric

> vaccinations. The number of cases

> of

> autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

> same time researchers

> discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

> many infant vaccines,

> contained levels of mercury that were above those

> allowed by Environmental

> Protection Agency guidelines.

>

> Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

> to cause

> neural damage in children, many medical

> practitioners denied the

> association.

> However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

> be removed from vaccine

> formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines9

> safety and created some

> public and political support against pharmaceutical

> companies.

>

> The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

> poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

> slew of illnesses

> potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

> legal recourse against the

> pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>

> A related bill that also potentially limited the

> freedom of

> Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

> Act (MEHPA), was passed

> in

> December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

> right to vaccinate

> people,

> enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

> without any compensation and

> ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

> situations.

>

> As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

> the law

> while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

> passed all or parts of it.

> In

> states where the law was passed, citizens will be

> charged with a crime if

> they

> refuse vaccinations.

>

> The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

> whether

> vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

> individual. This

> violation

> of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

> best for our own bodies

> and

> leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

> and the special interest

> groups that potentially control it.

>

> GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

GRRRRR..... I HATE FLU SHOTS - I do NOT believe in them. I had one ONCE

eons ago - back in the mid-60s when they first came out.... my doctor (who

gave me my check-ups before school) didn't believe in them and I always got

a note saying that I didn't have to have them... lol.

I can understand where they would be necessary because someone has very

serious health problems...

Strangely enough... since I was diagnosed with RA - I haven't had a cold,

sore throat, fever, etc. - hmmmm... wondering if there's a connection... lol

-- [ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

> Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

>

> Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

> Immunizations

>

> The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

> approved

> by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

> mean for Americans? It

> means

> that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

> be forced to receive

> immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

> exemptions allowed -- and

> refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

> imprisonment. Moreover, as

> it

> stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

> from potential liability

> in

> vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>

> The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

> protecting the population from impending

> bio-terrorism threats, and with a

> promise that the special interest conditions, such

> as the one relating to

> pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

> early next year.

>

> The concern is that corporate interests are

> overwhelmingly

> influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

> post-9/11 environment,

> raising

> the questions of whose interests homeland security

> is serving, and does it

> leave the public to fend for themselves?

>

> Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

> before

> the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

> disconcerting aspects

> being

> the association of autism with pediatric

> vaccinations. The number of cases

> of

> autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

> same time researchers

> discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

> many infant vaccines,

> contained levels of mercury that were above those

> allowed by Environmental

> Protection Agency guidelines.

>

> Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

> to cause

> neural damage in children, many medical

> practitioners denied the

> association.

> However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

> be removed from vaccine

> formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines9

> safety and created some

> public and political support against pharmaceutical

> companies.

>

> The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

> poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

> slew of illnesses

> potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

> legal recourse against the

> pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>

> A related bill that also potentially limited the

> freedom of

> Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

> Act (MEHPA), was passed

> in

> December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

> right to vaccinate

> people,

> enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

> without any compensation and

> ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

> situations.

>

> As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

> the law

> while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

> passed all or parts of it.

> In

> states where the law was passed, citizens will be

> charged with a crime if

> they

> refuse vaccinations.

>

> The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

> whether

> vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

> individual. This

> violation

> of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

> best for our own bodies

> and

> leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

> and the special interest

> groups that potentially control it.

>

> GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carol,

The story unfortunately is true and the organization is credible. You can

download the bill and read about the vaccines on page 76 of the bill. Then

if you scroll to the very end of the bill, the part that ends all liability

for vaccine harm was the last thing that several Senators say was thrown in

at the end, and they didn¹t even know it existed until after they voted.

One senator was very outspoken about this since he has 2 children that was

harmed by vaccines and he had no idea that this was added to the end of the

bill.

http://www.house.gov/rules/homeland.pdf

Scary stuff!

a

> Kathe, that makes good sense to me. My rheumy also advises to get the flu

> and pneumonia shots, and I've had mine, but he told me to double check that

> they do not use a live vaccine. I don't think many (or any) do now. What

> got me up in arms was that the article says that if the government deems it

> necessary, we'd have to have the immunization - no medical exemptions

> allowed. That's a scary thought, but then again I don't know the

> credibility of the organization/person that wrote the article. She/he/they

> are trying to persuade people to a certain viewpoint. It seems to me that

> the government would realize that a large minority of people who would

> become sick from their altered immune function would not be in the best

> interest of the country.

>

> Love and hugs,

> Carol

>

> [ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

>> > Now Receive Forced

>> > Immunizations

>> >

>> >

>> > Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

>> > Immunizations

>> >

>> > The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

>> > approved

>> > by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

>> > mean for Americans? It

>> > means

>> > that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

>> > be forced to receive

>> > immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

>> > exemptions allowed -- and

>> > refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

>> > imprisonment. Moreover, as

>> > it

>> > stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

>> > from potential liability

>> > in

>> > vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>> >

>> > The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

>> > protecting the population from impending

>> > bio-terrorism threats, and with a

>> > promise that the special interest conditions, such

>> > as the one relating to

>> > pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

>> > early next year.

>> >

>> > The concern is that corporate interests are

>> > overwhelmingly

>> > influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

>> > post-9/11 environment,

>> > raising

>> > the questions of whose interests homeland security

>> > is serving, and does it

>> > leave the public to fend for themselves?

>> >

>> > Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

>> > before

>> > the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

>> > disconcerting aspects

>> > being

>> > the association of autism with pediatric

>> > vaccinations. The number of cases

>> > of

>> > autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

>> > same time researchers

>> > discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

>> > many infant vaccines,

>> > contained levels of mercury that were above those

>> > allowed by Environmental

>> > Protection Agency guidelines.

>> >

>> > Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

>> > to cause

>> > neural damage in children, many medical

>> > practitioners denied the

>> > association.

>> > However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

>> > be removed from vaccine

>> > formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines9

>> > safety and created some

>> > public and political support against pharmaceutical

>> > companies.

>> >

>> > The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

>> > poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

>> > slew of illnesses

>> > potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

>> > legal recourse against the

>> > pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>> >

>> > A related bill that also potentially limited the

>> > freedom of

>> > Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

>> > Act (MEHPA), was passed

>> > in

>> > December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

>> > right to vaccinate

>> > people,

>> > enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

>> > without any compensation and

>> > ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

>> > situations.

>> >

>> > As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

>> > the law

>> > while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

>> > passed all or parts of it.

>> > In

>> > states where the law was passed, citizens will be

>> > charged with a crime if

>> > they

>> > refuse vaccinations.

>> >

>> > The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

>> > whether

>> > vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

>> > individual. This

>> > violation

>> > of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

>> > best for our own bodies

>> > and

>> > leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

>> > and the special interest

>> > groups that potentially control it.

>> >

>> > GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't worry about it too much, Carol. I know it's a scary idea, and

there are elements in place that I don't like, but I don't believe it

will come to forced smallpox vaccinations. If by some strange

combination of odd events it does, I'll be in jail with a. I hope

I'm allowed to bring my laptop with me.

The smallpox vaccine does contain a live virus, but it isn't the

smallpox virus - it's the vaccinia virus.

Without evidence that there is an imminent threat or an actual outbreak

of smallpox, I believe resuming large-scale vaccination against smallpox

in the US is unwise.

[ ] Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

Immunizations

Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced Immunizations

The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently approved

by the Senate and President Bush. What does this mean for Americans? It

means

that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now be forced to receive

immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical exemptions allowed --

and

refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Moreover, as

it

stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies from potential

liability

in

vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

protecting the population from impending bio-terrorism threats, and with

a

promise that the special interest conditions, such as the one relating

to

pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised early next year.

The concern is that corporate interests are overwhelmingly

influencing legislation in an already turbulent, post-9/11 environment,

raising

the questions of whose interests homeland security is serving, and does

it

leave the public to fend for themselves?

Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even before

the passing of this new bill, with one of the most disconcerting aspects

being

the association of autism with pediatric vaccinations. The number of

cases

of

autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the same time researchers

discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in many infant

vaccines,

contained levels of mercury that were above those allowed by

Environmental

Protection Agency guidelines.

Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury to cause

neural damage in children, many medical practitioners denied the

association.

However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal be removed from

vaccine

formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines¹ safety and created

some

public and political support against pharmaceutical companies.

The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other slew of illnesses

potentially linked to vaccinations will have no legal recourse against

the

pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

A related bill that also potentially limited the freedom of

Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA), was

passed

in

December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the right to vaccinate

people,

enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property without any compensation

and

ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency situations.

As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled the law

while 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed all or parts of

it.

In

states where the law was passed, citizens will be charged with a crime

if

they

refuse vaccinations.

The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of whether

vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the individual. This

violation

of freedom takes away our right to decide what is best for our own

bodies

and

leaves it in the hands of the federal government, and the special

interest

groups that potentially control it.

GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

[Guest guest]

Geez, a, that is scary. My husband said on 9/11 that we are going to

lose a lot of freedoms, and it certainly is turning out to be true.

Thanks for the info.

Love and hugs,

Carol

[ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

>> > Now Receive Forced

>> > Immunizations

>> >

>> >

>> > Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

>> > Immunizations

>> >

>> > The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

>> > approved

>> > by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

>> > mean for Americans? It

>> > means

>> > that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

>> > be forced to receive

>> > immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

>> > exemptions allowed -- and

>> > refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

>> > imprisonment. Moreover, as

>> > it

>> > stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

>> > from potential liability

>> > in

>> > vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>> >

>> > The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

>> > protecting the population from impending

>> > bio-terrorism threats, and with a

>> > promise that the special interest conditions, such

>> > as the one relating to

>> > pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

>> > early next year.

>> >

>> > The concern is that corporate interests are

>> > overwhelmingly

>> > influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

>> > post-9/11 environment,

>> > raising

>> > the questions of whose interests homeland security

>> > is serving, and does it

>> > leave the public to fend for themselves?

>> >

>> > Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

>> > before

>> > the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

>> > disconcerting aspects

>> > being

>> > the association of autism with pediatric

>> > vaccinations. The number of cases

>> > of

>> > autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

>> > same time researchers

>> > discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

>> > many infant vaccines,

>> > contained levels of mercury that were above those

>> > allowed by Environmental

>> > Protection Agency guidelines.

>> >

>> > Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

>> > to cause

>> > neural damage in children, many medical

>> > practitioners denied the

>> > association.

>> > However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

>> > be removed from vaccine

>> > formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines9

>> > safety and created some

>> > public and political support against pharmaceutical

>> > companies.

>> >

>> > The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

>> > poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

>> > slew of illnesses

>> > potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

>> > legal recourse against the

>> > pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>> >

>> > A related bill that also potentially limited the

>> > freedom of

>> > Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

>> > Act (MEHPA), was passed

>> > in

>> > December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

>> > right to vaccinate

>> > people,

>> > enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

>> > without any compensation and

>> > ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

>> > situations.

>> >

>> > As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

>> > the law

>> > while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

>> > passed all or parts of it.

>> > In

>> > states where the law was passed, citizens will be

>> > charged with a crime if

>> > they

>> > refuse vaccinations.

>> >

>> > The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

>> > whether

>> > vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

>> > individual. This

>> > violation

>> > of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

>> > best for our own bodies

>> > and

>> > leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

>> > and the special interest

>> > groups that potentially control it.

>> >

>> > GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

I just got some interesting news from a friend that is a nurse in a hospital

in our area. She just received a thick package containing all the

information about these immunizations and it specifically said that people

with autoimmune diseases are exempt! This is really great news. Hopefully

our elected officials realize how dangerous the smallpox vaccine can be to

us. I would not want to jeopardize anyone¹s safety if I couldn¹t get the

vaccine. I¹d be glad to be quarantined if that¹s what it took to avoid the

vaccine.

I¹m afraid I have to agree with your husband. My dad is a military man and

says the same thing. Our way of life will never be the same.

a

> Geez, a, that is scary. My husband said on 9/11 that we are going to

> lose a lot of freedoms, and it certainly is turning out to be true.

>

> Thanks for the info.

>

> Love and hugs,

> Carol

>

> [ ] Like It or Not, Americans May

>>>> >> > Now Receive Forced

>>>> >> > Immunizations

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > Like It or Not, Americans May Now Receive Forced

>>>> >> > Immunizations

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > The controversial Homeland Security Act was recently

>>>> >> > approved

>>>> >> > by the Senate and President Bush. What does this

>>>> >> > mean for Americans? It

>>>> >> > means

>>>> >> > that, if one man deems it necessary, we can all now

>>>> >> > be forced to receive

>>>> >> > immunizations -- no personal, religious or medical

>>>> >> > exemptions allowed -- and

>>>> >> > refusing to accept them is punishable by fine and

>>>> >> > imprisonment. Moreover, as

>>>> >> > it

>>>> >> > stands the bill protects pharmaceutical companies

>>>> >> > from potential liability

>>>> >> > in

>>>> >> > vaccine-related injury lawsuits.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > The bill was passed under the guise of necessity for

>>>> >> > protecting the population from impending

>>>> >> > bio-terrorism threats, and with a

>>>> >> > promise that the special interest conditions, such

>>>> >> > as the one relating to

>>>> >> > pharmaceutical companies above, would be revised

>>>> >> > early next year.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > The concern is that corporate interests are

>>>> >> > overwhelmingly

>>>> >> > influencing legislation in an already turbulent,

>>>> >> > post-9/11 environment,

>>>> >> > raising

>>>> >> > the questions of whose interests homeland security

>>>> >> > is serving, and does it

>>>> >> > leave the public to fend for themselves?

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > Vaccinations were already an unsettling topic, even

>>>> >> > before

>>>> >> > the passing of this new bill, with one of the most

>>>> >> > disconcerting aspects

>>>> >> > being

>>>> >> > the association of autism with pediatric

>>>> >> > vaccinations. The number of cases

>>>> >> > of

>>>> >> > autism in the U.S. tripled in the 90s, around the

>>>> >> > same time researchers

>>>> >> > discovered that Thimerosal, a preservative found in

>>>> >> > many infant vaccines,

>>>> >> > contained levels of mercury that were above those

>>>> >> > allowed by Environmental

>>>> >> > Protection Agency guidelines.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > Though the vaccines contained enough toxic mercury

>>>> >> > to cause

>>>> >> > neural damage in children, many medical

>>>> >> > practitioners denied the

>>>> >> > association.

>>>> >> > However, in 1999 the FDA recommended that Thimerosal

>>>> >> > be removed from vaccine

>>>> >> > formulas, which raised doubts about the vaccines9

>>>> >> > safety and created some

>>>> >> > public and political support against pharmaceutical

>>>> >> > companies.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > The recent bill makes it so that victims of mercury

>>>> >> > poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome, cancers and the other

>>>> >> > slew of illnesses

>>>> >> > potentially linked to vaccinations will have no

>>>> >> > legal recourse against the

>>>> >> > pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccines.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > A related bill that also potentially limited the

>>>> >> > freedom of

>>>> >> > Americans, the Model State Emergency Health Powers

>>>> >> > Act (MEHPA), was passed

>>>> >> > in

>>>> >> > December 2001. This law gave state legislatures the

>>>> >> > right to vaccinate

>>>> >> > people,

>>>> >> > enforce quarantines, seize and destroy property

>>>> >> > without any compensation and

>>>> >> > ration medical supplies, food and fuel in emergency

>>>> >> > situations.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > As of July 2002, 22 states have rejected or stalled

>>>> >> > the law

>>>> >> > while 16 states and the District of Columbia have

>>>> >> > passed all or parts of it.

>>>> >> > In

>>>> >> > states where the law was passed, citizens will be

>>>> >> > charged with a crime if

>>>> >> > they

>>>> >> > refuse vaccinations.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > The new Homeland Security Act takes the choice of

>>>> >> > whether

>>>> >> > vaccinations are beneficial or harmful away from the

>>>> >> > individual. This

>>>> >> > violation

>>>> >> > of freedom takes away our right to decide what is

>>>> >> > best for our own bodies

>>>> >> > and

>>>> >> > leaves it in the hands of the federal government,

>>>> >> > and the special interest

>>>> >> > groups that potentially control it.

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> > GuerillaNews.Com November 20, 2002

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

>>>> >> >

[Guest guest]

<PRE>my dr has already steered me away from flu and pneumonia shots. i saw her

yesterday and never even thought to ask about this. kathy in il