Archive for Weaponized Avian Flu – Page 7
Natural Solutions Foundation The Voice of Global Health Freedom (TM)
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Take Action Once for Each Member of Your Household.
Say NO to Forced Vaccination or Quarantine Once for Each Member of Your Household: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275
Donate to Support Court Case Seeking to Bar FDA from Releasing Untested Swine Flu Vaccines with Squalene: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 Tax deductible donations ending in numeral “6” are earmarked for legal case. Don’t forget to make a second recurring donation to support Natural Solutions Foundation. We are 100% supporter supported and your help makes our work possible.
Join Citizens Petition Demanding Emergency Stay of Approval of Untested Pandemic Vaccines: Action item to Support the Citizens Petition, Individuals Sign Here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27791
Action item to Support the Citizens Petition, Organizations Sign Here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27793
The police power of the state is a well established principle in the US Constitution. What happens when it is used to decide how to make the population healthier, or better, or smarter, or more desirable?
Fascism, both medical and non medical, is the inevitable result.
Many people do not know that the formal concept of Eugenics originated in the US with Stanford University professor Frances Galton, PhD and that it was enthusiastically championed by the select, unelected “masters” like John D. Rockefeller and the Harriman family. So successful were they in selling their loathsome idea that the perfection and purification of the human species could – and should – be accomplished at the discretion of the rulers of humanity, starting, of course, with themselves, that they sold the idea to numerous US State legislatures. The concept was upheld in the Supreme Court of the United States and then, once firmly established through legislation and practice, the idea was exported to Germany preceding the National Socialists. From there, it was enthusiastically embraced by the Nazis who modeled their eugenics laws and programs on the US ones, as the article below details.
Rockefeller set up and funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (clearly long before the Nazis seized power) which was the “scientific” font of this burgeoning atrocity.
The results are history. Or are they?
Perhaps they are part of the current world view of the ruling elite.
The article which follows is of great importance and, although lengthy, is well work a careful read. The information about deadly and abortion-inducing vaccines is especially timely. Please share it with full attribution.
Equally important, please visit www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and take the important action steps related to making sure that you have the right to say NO to a squalene laced vaccine containing one million times more squalene than the devastating Vaccine A given to Gulf War Vets which made at least 25% of them devastatingly ill for the rest of their foreshortened lives.
You read that right. One Million Time More Squalene.
Please visit http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 to make two tax deductible recurring donations: one, ending in the numeral “6” which will identify it as earmarked for the legal fund to bring a Court Case demanding a Stay to the FDA’s intended release of weaponized Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccines which have not had any safety testing on them completed. There are significant expenses with a Federal Court Case and we need your help in bringing this urgent request for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order before the appropriate Court THIS WEEK. The second donation is to keep the Natural Solutions Foundation operating and serving you. We are 100% supporter supported and your donations are our lifeblood.
Here is the article. Read, enjoy, share, take action, donate.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Valley of the Moon(TM) Eco Demonstration Project
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Valley of the Moon GMO and Toxin Free Coffee
www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
The Dark Side of Public Health
Maxwell J. Mehlman, J.D.
The history of public health efforts in the United States in many ways is a story of great accomplishment. In the 19th century, public health officials constructed urban water and sanitation systems to protect the public against filth. With the discovery of germs, they turned their attention to transmissible diseases and instituted measures to inspect and quarantine ships. The original name of the U. S. Public Health Service, in fact, was the “Marine Hospital Service.” (It became the Public Health Service in 1912.) In the late 19th century and early 20th century, public health authorities began mass inoculation programs. This culminated in the spectacular success of polio vaccination in the early 1950s.
Vaccinations were not universally applauded in the early 20th century, however, and one resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Henning Jacobson, sued the state public health department after he was fined $5 for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox, and then jailed when he refused to pay the fine. The case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts,1 went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Not only was this the first Supreme Court decision regarding the government’s public health powers but it still stands as the leading case acknowledging the scope of these powers.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Harlan, analogizes the public health power of the state to the power to defend itself against foreign attack, including requiring citizens to take up arms and risk “the chance of being shot down.” Harlan emphasizes that the common good takes precedence over the “wishes or convenience of the few.” The only constraints on the exercise of this broad public health power are that it may not be either “arbitrary or unreasonable” or “cruel and inhuman.” Accordingly, the opinion states that a person can refuse to be vaccinated if doing so “would seriously impair his health, or probably cause his death.” In the Court’s judgment, Henning Jacobson’s objection that he had had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child did not meet that test. (Note that the grant of an exception to immunization would not mean that a potentially infected individual would be allowed to circulate freely among the population, since the public health authorities could quarantine the person indefinitely.)
The AIDS Crisis
The AIDS epidemic posed some difficult challenges for public health officials. This was not the first time that they had confronted a sexually transmitted disease (STD). In the early 20th century, the STD of concern was syphilis and the government’s actions were vigorous. During World War I, for example, 20,000 women believed to be at risk for spreading the disease (hence, the reason they were called “spreaders”) were incarcerated in government camps. In the mid-1930s, Surgeon General Thomas Parran developed the techniques of mandatory reporting of infected persons, partner notification and contact tracing that became staples of the public health armamentarium. By the end of World War II, all states required syphilis testing before a couple could obtain a marriage license. Most states repealed these laws in the 1980s but not before many people suffered severe anguish as a result of the 25% false positive rate of the test then in use.
In the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, even more draconian public health measures were proposed. In 1985, the legislatures of Colorado, Florida and Texas considered bills to ban HIV positive individuals from working as food handlers. Rev. Jerry Falwell called for all prostitutes to be placed in quarantine and a bill to that effect was introduced in the Colorado legislature. William F. Buckley called for universal HIV screening. In 1987, Illinois began requiring HIV testing for marriage licenses. (By the end of 1988, 159,000 people had been tested at a cost of $5.6 million. A total of 23 cases were detected.) Also in 1987, then-Vice President George Bush urged the nation to mandate universal HIV screening.
These calls for mandatory action were resisted by AIDS activists and some physicians. Quarantining individuals who engaged in high risk activities was deemed imprudent because it was known that a person could be infected with the HIV virus yet yield a negative test result because of a delay in seroconversion (the ability to detect antibodies to the virus in the blood). Thus, a person who was quarantined would have no way of proving that he or she was uninfected; quarantine, in effect, would have to be for life. The same seroconversion phenomenon bedeviled calls for mandatory testing of patients and prisoners after health care workers, law enforcement personnel or firefighters suffered accidental exposures. This led to an emphasis instead on universal precautions. Furthermore, the stigma attached to AIDS and the discrimination faced by those infected or at risk persuaded health policymakers that, in contrast to the use of mandatory reporting, partner notification and contact tracing that had been employed in the fight against syphilis in the 1930s, more people would obtain HIV testing if the tests were available on a voluntary, anonymous basis.
Yet many in the public health community chafed at anonymous testing, believing that it placed the public at unnecessary risk by tying the hands of public health officials when it came to tracking and preventing the spread of the disease. There were repeated calls to return to the old mandatory public health style of intervention. Gradually, this viewpoint gained support. In 1992, North Carolina public health officials called a halt to anonymous HIV testing, an action that was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in a case called ACT-UP Triangle v. Commissioner for Health Services.2 As of now, anonymous testing is banned in Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.
What tipped the balance against voluntary, anonymous testing was the development of drug treatment. The FDA approved AZT in 1987, followed by protease inhibitors in 1995. Once these drugs became available, the chilling effect of the stigma or discrimination associated with identifiable reporting of positive HIV test results was deemed to be negated by an individual’s desire to be tested so that treatment could commence.
An indication of how far the nation has gone toward a mandatory public health model in its response to AIDS is the September, 2006, recommendation by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that identifiable, reportable HIV tests be made a part of “routine” medical testing. The CDC states that patients should be notified that they were about to be tested for HIV and given an opportunity to decline, but the CDC also states that physicians should not have to obtain specific informed consent for the testing. At the same time, the CDC did not specific what would count as adequate notice. Conceivably, it might be sufficient if HIV testing were merely listed among the series of other tests on a laboratory order form.
Still, the nation seems to have weathered the AIDS epidemic relatively successfully, without seriously weakening the public health system. The question is whether we will be as fortunate in responding to new challenges, especially the challenges posed by our growing knowledge of genetics and by the War on Terror. In order to understand exactly what is at stake, we need to revisit some less successful public health campaigns of the past.
Sickle Cell Screening
After a rapid, accurate genetic test for the sickle cell mutation was developed, a number of states mandated population screening. In some states, the screening was limited to African-Americans, who comprise about 8 to 10% of those who carry the mutation for the disease. In other states, testing was a prerequisite for public schooling. There was inadequate public education about the significance of a positive test ? result. Many who were merely carriers of the autosomal recessive gene thought that they actually had the disease. People who were homozygous for the mutation did not understand that the severity of the disease varied substantially from one individual to another. Eventually, most of the mandatory screening laws were repealed but not before many people suffered emotional distress and discrimination by insurers and employers.
And in case you thought that winning a Nobel prize for science equips you to make good public health policy, Linus Pauling, who did pioneering work in the late 1940s on the molecular basis for sickle cell disease, not only fully supported the screening laws but, in 1968, urged that every person who was revealed to be a carrier of the sickle cell trait should have an “S” tattooed on their foreheads so that they could avoid reproducing with another carrier.
The U.S. Public Health Service Experiment at Tuskegee
In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service began a study of 410 African-American syphilitic men in rural Alabama. The purpose of the study was to follow the course of the untreated disease. Subjects were not informed what was wrong with them, and they were not treated, even in the 1950s after penicillin was recognized as standard, effective therapy. In fact, U.S. public health officials actively discouraged treatment by local physicians, the state health department and the army. Subjects were offered a $50 burial subsidy to stay in the study and in 1958 each survivor was given $25 and a certificate of appreciation.
The first paper describing the study appeared in the medical literature in 1936 and reports continued to be published through the 1960s. In 1969, a committee of the CDC reviewed the experiment and authorized it to continue. By the time the press exposed the study in 1972 and it was halted, only 74 men remained alive.
Eugenics
The year 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the first eugenic involuntary sterilization law in history. It may come as a surprise that this law was not passed by the Nazis but by the State of Indiana.
The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In 1904, he defined it as “[t]he science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.” Upon receiving a large gift from the wife of railroad magnate E. H. Harriman, a biology professor named Charles Davenport in 1905 established an organization called the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. (Ironically, this is now a center for genetic research and the home of Dr. James Watson, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA.) In 1907, as mentioned above, the Indiana legislature authorized the compulsory sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” residing in a state institution, provided that a panel of one physician and two surgeons agreed that there was “no probability of improvement” and that it was “inadvisable” for the inmate to procreate.
Eugenics legislation really took off after Davenport hired an Iowa high school teacher by the name of Harry Loughlin to direct the Eugenics Record Office. Loughlin was a tireless advocate of eugenics and, by 1913, 14 states operated active compulsory sterilization programs. Supporters of these programs included many prominent progressives and social reformers. Between 1913 and 1918, a number of the state laws were held unconstitutional on various grounds (including lack of equal protection because they only applied to institutionalized persons; lack of adequate procedural safeguards; and cruel and unusual punishment). In response, Loughlin drafted a new model sterilization law.
One of the states that adopted the new language was Virginia. Under the provisions of the Virginia law, the state sterilized a woman named Carry Buck, who was institutionalized in the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, and she then filed a lawsuit ostensibly to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. As legal historian Paul Lombardo discovered, the suit was a sham. Buck was given virtually no effective legal representation; her lawyer, as well as her supporting witnesses, had gotten together with the state officials to concoct the suit in order to convince the courts to uphold the new model law.
Like the earlier Jacobson case, the case of Buck v. Bell also made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and, in 1927, Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most respected jurists in American history, upheld the law with the now infamous words:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Decades later, Lombardo’s research showed that Buck had been institutionalized when she got pregnant after she had been raped by the nephew of the foster family she had been living with. Neither she, nor her mother or child, were “feeble-minded.”
With the constitutional door held open by the Court in Buck, 28 states enacted compulsory sterilization laws by 1931. Georgia passed the last sterilization law in the U.S. in 1937. The number of reported sterilizations in California rose from 322 in 1925 to 2,362 over the course of 1928 and 1929. Nationally, approximately 3,000 operations were reported annually prior to World War II. Many sterilizations that occurred were not reported.
Eugenic sterilization is a form of “negative” eugenics, in that it seeks to prevent the birth of genetically undesirable individuals. The eugenics movement also fostered positive eugenics. During the 1920s, state fairs awarded prizes to “fitter families” and “better babies” alongside champion farm animals. An organization called the Pioneer Fund offered military pilots and crews with three children the equivalent of $45,000 if they fathered a fourth.
The allure of eugenics was apparent to a former German army corporal who read about Loughlin’s model law in 1924 while he was in jail writing a book called Mein Kampf. When the Nazis came to power, the first piece of legislation they enacted was a sterilization law modeled on the Virginia statute. (Loughlin was so revered by the Nazis that the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg gave him an honorary degree in 1934.) By 1935, over 150,000 people had been sterilized under the German law, including a number of deaf persons who volunteered as a show of support for the Fatherland. Gradually the scope of the law was broadened into a tool of genocide. The Germans also vigorously pursued positive eugenics, as illustrated by the Lebensborn program, in which selected Aryan women were bred with members of the SS and the resulting offspring raised in state-approved foster families.
Although the revelations of Nazi atrocities chilled involuntary sterilization in the U.S. after the war, the practice did not completely disappear. In 1958, 574 operations were performed in Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. By the time its law was finally repealed in 1974, Virginia had sterilized over 8,000. In April 2007, a woman who was sterilized for eugenic purposes in Indiana in 1972 participated in a ceremony commemorating the victims of that state’s program.
Current Public Health Initiatives
Are dark episodes like the eugenics movement a thing of the past? Maybe not. There are many current public initiatives that could be considered eugenic in the sense that they discourage the birth of children in certain populations, such as the poor. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for instance, the government in 2001 spent $1.26 billion on reversible contraceptive services and $95 million on sterilization services, virtually all of which were earmarked for the poor. The welfare programs in 24 states stop increasing benefits once a woman has had more than a certain number of children. In Dandridge v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld this approach in the face of constitutional challenge. The Court found that the state of Maryland did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it had a reasonable basis for the program, namely, “the state’s legitimate interest in encouraging employment and in avoiding discrimination between welfare families and the families of the working poor.” Interestingly, the state itself had articulated an additional goal–“providing incentives for family planning” — which the Court did not mention.
Some commentators object to calling these programs eugenic because, in contrast to compulsory sterilization or screening, they are in a sense voluntary. A woman does not have to get pregnant or accept welfare. Yet there is one mandatory public health program that is becoming increasingly eugenic: newborn screening. This program began in the 1960s after physician Robert Guthrie developed a screening test for phenylketonuria (PKU), an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder that can be treated effectively if detected soon after birth. Guthrie also pioneered a method for collecting and transporting the blood samples used for screening on special filter paper, known as “Guthrie cards.” Massachusetts adopted newborn screening on a voluntary basis in 1962 but after President Kennedy’s Advisory Committee on Mental Retardation recommended mandatory screening, states began to enact newborn screening as a legal requirement. By 1973, newborn screening was compulsory in 43 states. Now it is universal.
Pressure from public health officials and groups like the March of Dimes, combined with faster and cheaper technologies such as tandem mass spectrometry and microchip arrays, are causing programs to screen for greater numbers of disorders. The American College of Medical Genetics currently advocates screening for 29 disorders and California now screens for over 70.
Only Maryland, Wyoming and the District of Columbia currently seek parental consent for newborn screening. (Massachusetts recently has begun doing so in a pilot program.) In Maryland, the consent is for the total screening package; parents are not asked to consent to specific tests. Thirty-three states provide an exemption from screening if contrary to parents’ religious beliefs but it is up to the parents to assert the objection without being asked.
In 2005, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a parental challenge to newborn screening on religious grounds in a case called Douglas County v. Anaya.3 After a home birth, the Anayas refused to allow a blood sample to be taken and sued the public health department to block enforcement of the law, which contained no exceptions. The court refused to recognize a religious exemption, noting that “[t]he health and safety of the child are of particular concern…”
By focusing on the health and safety of the child, the court makes the case seem no different from the numerous decisions in which the courts refuse to allow parents such as Jehovah’s witnesses to withhold treatment from children for religious reasons. But courts override a parental treatment decision for religious reasons only when the denial of treatment would be fatal or would seriously impair the child’s health. Routine newborn screening does not have such a direct connection to the child’s welfare. The prevalence of PKU in newborns is only about 1 in 16,000. Of the 29 disorders for which the American College of Medical Genetics recommends screening, 12 have a prevalence of less than 1 in 100,000.
Recently, a federal district court upheld the right of a mother to refuse to allow her child to undergo a spinal tap for suspected meningitis.4 The mother did not assert a religious objection but instead felt that the risks of a spinal tap exceeded the benefit in her daughter’s situation. The court held that “[t]he tipping point–the point at which parents lose their substantive due process right to decline medical treatment for their minor child and the State is allowed to exercise its parens patriae interest to compel the child to undergo the treatment–exists when, considering all the circumstances in a particular case, no reasonable parent would decline treatment.” Based on this principle, the question for the Anaya court should have been: Would any reasonable parent refuse newborn screening? Only if the answer is “no” would the court be justified in overriding the parents’ wishes.
In any event, the Supreme Court of Nebraska did not rest its decision in the Anaya case on the need for screening to protect the newborn’s health alone. In addition, the court observed that mandatory screening was necessary in order to address “the potential social burdens created by children who are not identified and treated.”
The eugenics implications of this statement are all the more striking in view of the changing nature of newborn screening programs. Originally, states only screened for disorders such as PKU for which effective treatment must begin soon after birth. However, some of the tests being added to screening panels detect disorders that do not have to be treated at such an early age or, in some cases, are not readily treatable at all. Moreover, some public health advocates are now calling for abandoning the connection between newborn screening and treatment altogether. Screening for untreatable disorders, they argue, could spare the family years of uncertainty once symptoms emerge, provide the child with adjunctive if not curative interventions and permit the child to participate in research on the disorder. In addition, however, they point to the value of screening as a tool in family planning. As one recent article explains, “[a]rguments for considering broader benefits from the early diagnosis that only newborn screening can provide include…knowledge on which to base reproductive decision-making years before a disease would be diagnosed for the affected child…”5 In other words, screening should be expanded so that parents can avoid giving birth to another child with the same disability.
It is one thing for parents to make reproductive decisions in order to prevent the birth of children with disabilities. It is another thing altogether for the government to establish a compulsory genetic screening program to facilitate this objective. This is not to say that public health programs designed to give parents more information about the health status of newborns are a bad idea or that they are on a par with the atrocities of Nazi Germany. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that they are not eugenic practices.
Bioterrorism
One of the more vigorous efforts now underway to expand the power of public health authorities is being waged as part of the War on Terror. Beginning immediately after 9/11, and spurred on by the subsequent mail-borne anthrax attacks, inspection of our public health infrastructure showed that it was woefully inadequate and incapable of responding effectively to a major bioterrorism incident. This prompted intense efforts to increase public health spending on equipment and training.
In addition, however, some public health zealots believed that the nation’s public health laws needed to be revamped to give public health officials adequate power and discretion to take whatever steps might be necessary to combat bioterrorism. They proposed language for a model state law and, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, enlisted the aid of a “who’s who” of public health officials and advocates to draft a Model State Public Health Act.
An indication of the scope of the powers that would be conferred on public health officials under this law can be seen by considering its provisions for mandatory screening and testing. Under the act, a state or local public health agency may establish a compulsory screening program for any “conditions of public health importance that pose a significant risk or seriously threaten the public’s health” (section 5-106(d)(1)). The terms “significant risk” and “seriously threaten” are not defined in the act but the term “condition of public health importance” is defined to mean “a disease, syndrome, symptom, injury, or other threat to health that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community” (section 1-102(6).
Under the model act, could a public health agency therefore make prenatal screening for genetic diseases and conditions mandatory for all pregnant women? The answer is yes, so long as the agency believes that the diseases and conditions, if not detected in utero, pose a significant threat to health that can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community. Is such a belief far fetched? Not necessarily: the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently called for “routine” prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome”.
Another provision of the model act states that a public health agency may make participation in such a screening program a condition “of participating in or receiving a service or privilege” (section 5-106(d)(2)). Accordingly, women who refused to be screened could be denied health and welfare benefits.
Conclusion
The dark side of public health is most vividly reflected in the eugenics movement, which it championed. It is noteworthy that only three cases involving public health law have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. One, Skinner v. Oklahoma, decided in the middle of World War II, invalidated a state law requiring certain habitual criminals to be sterilized but not others.6 This is the only Supreme Court case in which the justices curbed the public health power of the state. But the Court’s opinion left open the possibility that a law that sterilized all habitual criminals would be constitutional. The other two cases were Jacobson, the vaccination case, and the eugenics case, Buck v. Bell, both discussed above.
What is striking about the Buck, case is that Justice Holmes’s opinion sustaining the constitutionality of Virginia’s eugenic sterilization law cited only one previous case as legal precedent: Jacobson. Holmes felt that the broad public health powers upheld in Jacobson extended so far that the state could sterilize people whose genes were deemed defective. Even more striking, the Buck case has never been overruled.
As Justice Holmes made clear in Buck, public health officials may sacrifice the welfare of individuals in order to promote the welfare of the public. One enduring question is who gets to decide what constitutes the public welfare. Under the Model State Public Health Act, it is the public health authorities and the act places few constraints on their discretion. A second question is how far the authorities may go in achieving a public health objective. Under the model act, their power is virtually unlimited.
A recent news story described a patient with drug-resistant TB who, believing himself to have been treated successfully, refused to wear a face mask. Public health officials accordingly quarantined him in a hospital jail cell, where the jailers refused to allow him to have access to a clock radio, television or cellphone. After news reports pointed out that the man was only under quarantine, not arrest, his cellphone was restored and the authorities promised to return his TV.
Public health practices must strike the right balance between individual and community welfare. The TB patient’s plight may seem trivial. After all, TB is a scourge and drug-resistant TB is on the increase. But the nation was founded on the principle that the power of the state must be exercised within constitutional limits and overly zealous measures in the past have left an indelible stain on the history of public health.
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/bioethics/dark_14/
References
1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). return
2. ACT-UP Triangle v. Commissioner for Health Services, 483 S.E.2d 388 (NC 1997).
3. Douglas County v. Anaya, 694 N.W.2d 601 (Neb. 2005).
4. Mueller v. Auker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13172 (D. Id. 2007).
5. Duane Alexander (NIH) and Peter C. van Dyck (HRSA) 2006: “A Vision of the Future of Newborn Screening” 117 PEDIATRICS 350, 352.
6. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). June 2007
© 2008 interMDnet Corporation. All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY
In fact, it was Rockefeller who introduced
| Health Freedom is Our First Freedom™ |
| STOP the SHOT! |
Rima E. Laibow, MD SHARE! ORGANIZE! SIGN CITIZEN’S PETITION! CONTRIBUTE! To unsubscribe from this Health Freedom Action Alert, click here and enter your email address. To manage your subscription preferences, click here. |
|
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Funding the “Stop the Shot” TRO
As we’ve announced elsewhere — http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=3429 — FDA accepted our Citizens Petition to stay any approval of the “Swine Flu” H1N1 vaccine, but then rejected it as an “emergency” — so we are preparing to go to Federal Court for the redress of grievances we cannot get from the Agency.
I’ve just responded to an email I received criticizing the efforts of various pro-se people to go to court to try to stop any threatened forced vaccinations. I’d thought I’d share that response with you all, asking you to join our Natural Solutions “Going to the Sixes” law suit funding campaign… more about that later…
——————
Dear D…
Thank you for your comments. I think that T… and others who are pursuing legal remedies are to be congratulated for their efforts. “Push-back” works! Just a couple days ago CNN announced that the federal authorities were scaling back their vaccine purchases due to growing public opposition* to the “Swine Flu” vaccine — and the President announced that all vaccines will be voluntary. We don’t believe that, and cite the bill pending in Massachusetts that would criminalize vaccine resistance.
However, we’ve been taking another tack on the issue of stopping the uninsurable, untested, unproven “Swine Flu” vaccine. Led by Gary Null PhD, Dr. Koren and Dr Laibow, we filed a Citizens Petition under 21 CFR 10.30 and 35 seeking an emergency stay from FDA of the vaccine approval process. After review by FDA’s chief counsel, the agency finally filed the petition… and decided not to treat it as an emergency… so we’ve exhausted our administrative remedies and are getting ready to go to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in DC for a TRO against approval of the vaccine. [TRO = Temporary Restraining Order; the first step in getting a permanent Injunction against the vaccine approval without safety testing.]
No approval; no jabs. The “mandatory” vaccination issue doesn’t even come up.
We’ve prepared a 22 document package for our DC lawyers to bring to court, and it is nearly ready.
What we need to do now is raise the funds necessary to fund this case.
If you want to donate for this purpose, we’ve set up our “Taking it to the Sixes” donation program: just use our regular donation page, but end your donation with a “6” – $16, $56, $106 etc… and we’ll put that money aside for this case.
Gary Null is raising funds for the case; Dr. Koren’s Foundation for Health Choices is doing so, and so are we, through:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189
“Just remember to make your donation in an amount that ends in “6? (hence, “Taking it to the Sixes”) and you’ll be supporting the case; so donate: $6 or $16 or $56 or $106 or $1,006 or $10,006 or…..”
Of all the proposed legal actions against the vaccine, our action may have the best chance of success.
We’ve started correctly by “exhausting our administrative remedies” — we’ve gone to the federal authorities since their approval of the vaccine is a prerequisite for any mandates — and we’ve focused on the main issue: federal law requires that only “safe and effective” drugs (including vaccines) be approved by FDA where the “benefits” outweigh the “risks.”
However, in this matter, FDA threatens to approve the vaccines without adequate or any safety testing (current tests are dosage tests only of version of the vaccine without all the adjuvants… without the squalene adjuvant which has never been approved for use in a drug in the US). How can the FDA certify that the vaccines are “safe and effective” or that the benefits outweigh the risks without safety testing of the vaccines with all the proposed adjuvants?
In 2004 a similar issue came up with regard to the “emergency” anthrax vaccine that included unapproved squalene that was forced on the military. The Federal Judge handling that case stopped involuntary use of the untested vaccine. Over 60,000 soldiers were hospitalized for adverse reactions before it was stopped and many consider that vaccine the prime cause of Gulf War Syndrome. The 1976 “:Swine Flu” vaccine was a disaster; the squalene-contaminated anthrax vaccine was a nightmare. This madness must end here. And we need your help to make that possible.
So, we have the right procedure and strong law backing us; now all we need is continued public support to fund the case…
Ralph Fucetola, JD
Natural Solutions Foundation Trustee
The Vitamin Lawyer.com Consultancy
http://www.vitaminlawyer.com
http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com
All Rights Reserved . . .
PS – as soon as the papers are finalized, we will be publishing the Petition for Review and supporting documents at http://drrimatruthreports.com
—— Original Message ——
Received: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:57:45 AM EDT
From: “D…”
To:
Subject: RE: Injunctions filed to stop flu vaccinations?
–snip–
————————————–
* Do you think the over 1,800,000 emails you’ve all sent to your national legislators and decision makers, and your state legislators, has had an impact? We do! Push Back Works and we need you to continue to push back! Continue to take action here:
Individuals – Join Here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27791
Organizations Join Here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27793
| Health Freedom is Our First Freedom™ |
| STOP the SHOT! |
Rima E. Laibow, MD SHARE! ORGANIZE! SIGN CITIZEN’S PETITION! CONTRIBUTE! To unsubscribe from this Health Freedom Action Alert, click here and enter your email address. To manage your subscription preferences, click here. |
|
Natural Solutions Foundation
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Mike Adams, a good friend and fellow freedom fighter, is now saying publicly what I have been saying for months: the US is set for mandatory vaccinations, despite their denial of any such intent. They will call them “voluntary” because you can take them or accept involuntary quarantine instead. That is called “duress” in the law and invalidates any agreement you might make under that condition. How does that work? Very well if we let it! Read Push Back Truth and the Ministry of Lies, http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=3279, for more detail on this DoubleThink deceit.
Try telling that to the trooper or military person who is hauling you off to a prison or FEMA camp after you said you did not want a vaccine with 1 million times more squalene than the vaccines that felled so many healthy young men and women with Gulf War Syndrome after they were injected with Vaccine A by the military in a heinous experiment from which hundreds of thousands of young men and women have suffered and died. 1 million times more.
Make no mistake. The H1N1 “Pandemic” is only the first of many. You will hear again and again that there is another “mystery” plague which we need to be vaccinated against or it will kill hundreds of millions of people. Medicago, for example, is testing a new type of vaccine for Avian Flu (we are anything but done with that one!) and the bonanza will continue, pushing poison into us and our children while we sicken and, oh-so-profitably die. http://www.lsblog.org/blog/?p=6980
The first of the blatant fascist States, given an excuse to become an anti Constitutional land of terror by the absurd and possibly non-existent H1N1 “pandemic” is Massachusetts. Please read what my good friend, and fellow freedom fighter, Mike Adams, has to say about the evaporation of your freedoms, in MA, and outside of it.
Once a cradle of liberty, today a bill awaiting passage by the MA House of Representatives could signal the rapid and final collapse of the Constitution of the United States.
Tyrannies always cloak their misdoings in high-minded words meant to delude and mislead the gullible. This time is no exception. Violating one Amendment after another, authorizing warantless search and seizure, incarceration without trial, punitive fines for protecting your body’s integrity, the list goes on and on. And it is, of course, all for the best purpose: for protecting you from the “deadly” “pandemic” H1N1 virus.
Except it is not deadly. It may not even exist, since I have yet to find a solid, unbiased scientific paper which documents that it actually exists, it certainly is not diagnosed with any accuracy by any available means (which would make good sense if it is a total hoax, a complete fraud) and the untested, unnecessary and unsafe vaccines which are being touted – at gunpoint, it would seem – to either prevent or treat it are far worse, according to UK and Australian doctors and nurses, than the supposedly lethal disease.
New York Nurses, too, state that they see no need for the jab in light of the nature of the disease (trivial) and the risks of the squalene-laced vaccine.
Please take a few minutes to read the full article below which, although it pertains to Massachusetts, actually is a blue print for every State in the Union.
This bill conforms nicely to the State Emergency Medical Health Powers Act, of which nearly every state has already passed some version. As previously reported in these health freedom blogs, under these acts, warantless invasion and property seizure is permitted, mandatory forced vaccination or incarceration are permitted and the closure of all roads into or out of cities, towns and states are permitted. That is precisely what the MA law sets up.
Take action while there is still time. Organize signing events in your community to get every person you can reach to sign the Action Item demanding the right to reject this false and diabolical “choice” of either accepting a potentially deadly vaccine or being incarcerated for an indefinite period.
Click here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275, to take action to demand the right to say “NO!” to forced vaccination or quarantine and here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27791.
Once these laws are passed in your state, and the CDC is shipping vaccines, there will not be any legal action you can take. Time is extraordinarily short.
Act now. Mobilize your neighbors. Now.
And, while you are thinking about it, please make a tax deductible recurring donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation, http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189, to help defray our costs, including our legal costs.
If your donation ends in “$6” we will know that it is for legal defense. That’s $5006, $16, $256 or whatever you can afford. It’s your health. It’s your freedom. Health Freedom IS your First Freedom.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Valley of the Moon(TM) Eco Demonstration Project
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
PS – In case you think we are going off the “deep end” here, take a look at this Federal Government web page that has a form on it for the States to use to force you from your home, violate your Right to Self Shield and, in general, set up the apparatus of Medical Fascism:
http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/Facility%20Quarantine%20Order%20novelflu%20filled%20in%204-30-09.pdf
The CDC “recommends” the jab and then the States mandate it… all quite legal and all very fascistic.
——————————–
Forced Vaccinations, quarantine camps, MA Senate reportedly passes “Pandemic Response Bill 2028”
Natural News | August 29, 2009 | Natural News Staff
NaturalNews) The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.
It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel. You can read the text yourself here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02028.htm
Here’s some of the language contained in the bill:
(Violation of 4th Amendment: Illegal search and seizure)
During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority… may exercise authority… to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility; to destroy any material; to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
(Violation of 14th Amendment; illegal arrest without a warrant)
…an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. [Gunpoint]
(Government price controls)
The attorney general, in consultation with the office of consumer affairs and business regulation, and upon the declaration by the governor that a supply emergency exists, shall take appropriate action to ensure that no person shall sell a product or service that is at a price that unreasonably exceeds the price charged before the emergency.
“Involuntary Transportation” (also known as kidnapping)
Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.
$1,000 / day in fines
Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which noncompliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both.
Forced vaccinations
Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority: (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease…
Forced quarantine for those who refuse (illegal imprisonment without charge)
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.
Arrest for refusal to be “decontaminated”
If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court… During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontamination or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.
Interrogation
When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under section 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public health authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information… If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health…
Forced isolation and quarantine
An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health.
Forced entry into any home or building…
There’s a lot more in this bill, including language that allows Mass. police to enter any home or building without a search warrant, to destroy any object or building they suspect may pose a threat to public safety, to order the closing and / or decontamination of any facility using highly toxic chemical decontamination agents, and to arrest, detain and interrogate anyone who gets in their way.
Meanwhile, all state law enforcement and medical personnel are granted complete immunity from prosecution for their part in violating your Constitutional rights. So if they violate your right to due process, or they accidentally destroy your home, or they kill your family dog because they suspect it might be infected, you have absolutely zero recourse.
Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it. It’s all written, clear as day, in this law: The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State.
Kiss your freedoms goodbye Massachusetts, it seems, has never met a vaccine it didn’t like. This is the same state that rounded up the parents of schoolchildren who hadn’t been vaccinated, then corralled them into a courtroom (with attack dogs standing guard outside) and forced vaccine injections onto all the schoolchildren under the threat of jail time for parents who resisted.
Remember, readers, that this is all taking place in the “land of the free,” a nation that former President George Bush claimed was so envied around the world that terrorists attacked America because they “hate freedom” and wanted to destroy our way of life. But terrorists need no help attacking freedom as long as Massachusetts is in the vaccine game, because this latest form of “gunpoint medicine” destroys freedom for everyday Americans in a way that terrorists could have never hoped to accomplish with all the bombs in the world.
Massachusetts, it seems, has done what terrorists could not: It has turned “free” Americans into medical slave subjects who no longer have any freedom to decide the details of their own medical care. All options have been stripped from them but one: The Big Pharma option. That’s the one that involves using untested, unproven and potentially dangerous vaccines that could paralyze you or even kill you. All to defend you against a virus that’s so weak, almost anyone with decent levels of vitamin D and basic nutrition can resist the virus without incident.
But Massachusetts, as you’ll see below, is just the beginning. It turns out that the whole nation could soon find itself under a similar forced vaccination policy…
Isolation camps, forced vaccinations and more In 2006, former President George Bush signed into law the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). It gives power to the Secretary of the U.S. government’s Health and Human Services department (HHS) to declare any infectious disease a “national emergency” and therefore require mandatory vaccination of the entire population. Because of the existence of this PREP Act, the entire population of the USA is now but one pen stroke away from being subjected to mandatory swine flu vaccinations at gunpoint.
Those who resist such vaccines will be arrested and taken away for “isolation” in domestic prison camps. They can’t just leave vaccine refusers free to live among the population, of course, because that would send the message that anyone can refuse the vaccines without consequence. So they’ll arrest those who refuse the vaccine, labeling them “a threat to national security” (enemies of the state) and imprison them without trial, without charges and without any legal representation whatsoever.
Meanwhile, all those who take part in enforcing these crimes against the American people will be granted complete immunity. From the HHS website: “[the Secretary may] issue a declaration… that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency…”
There are other laws already on the books that strip Americans of virtually all Constitutional rights in a “pandemic emergency” scenario. One such act is The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (S. 3678), which probably merits another article altogether.
Have no illusions: At the stroke of a pen, the Constitutional rights of all Americans will be immediately suspended. Mandatory vaccinations and “decontaminations” will kick in and the mass arrest of resisters will begin. There will be no court, no trial, no jury and no due process. Your actions will be dictated to you by a law enforcement officer or a health care worker who has been granted complete immunity, so if you just happen to get kicked around a bit (or shot), there’s really nothing you can do about it.
Some might argue these are necessary actions to save a nation from a deadly pandemic. And yet they forget that the pandemic has been intentionally allowed to worsen by censoring information about vitamin D and natural remedies that could stop it. Somebody at the top, in other words, wants this pandemic to get really bad, perhaps because it allows them to invoke precisely the draconian response I’ve outlined in this article. Seizing power in a Democracy cannot be accomplished by simply declaring war on the rights of the People. Rather, a situation must be engineered where the People are so desperate that they beg to be controlled. Releasing a pandemic into the wild is the perfect way to accomplish precisely that.
Timing
None of these laws will be invoked before the vaccines are ready in large numbers, of course. Part of the purpose in all this is to prop up Big Pharma profits with massive vaccination efforts, so until the vaccines are actually available, don’t expect to see any declarations of a public emergency.
It might take until October or November before the vaccines are readily available in sufficient quantity to inject just half the U.S. population. But once that milestone is reached, a declaration of a pandemic emergency is imminent. Trust me on this point: They won’t let all those hundreds of millions of vaccines sit around unused; they’ll make sure they get injected into the People as soon as possible, because that’s the only way to justify making more.
So the sequence of events we’re likely to see here are:
#1) Waiting on vaccine manufacturing to procure at least 150 million doses in the U.S. Probable time frame = October.
#2) Hyping up a few local swine flu breakouts in schools in order to justify step #3. Probable time frame = November / December.
#3) Declaring a full-blown national emergency and announcing mandatory vaccinations for everyone (to use up the vaccines that are now available). Probable time frame = January / February / March.
#4) If the disease continues to spread, this is when you’ll see forced entry into homes and buildings, forced “decontamination” sprayings, widespread arrests and forced quarantine of resisters, Martial Law and a complete crackdown on freedoms (especially in the inner cities). This will likely continue through the winter until Spring arrives, bringing the sunshine that will suppress the virus around the May 2010 time frame.
All this is written in black ink. It’s already part of the pandemic response plan. Body bags, FEMA camps and much more.
Two years ago, this was all the domain of conspiracy theory “wingnuts.” Now it’s State law. Now it’s being openly discussed in security conferences and health care meetings. What will we do when the hospital beds are full? How will we accomplish the “involuntary transportation” of those who are infected? Are there enough zip-tie handcuffs to go around? How do we disarm and arrest citizens who refuse to be vaccinated? How do we prevent National Guard troops from becoming infected themselves?
These are the questions circulating now at high levels, all across the world. And the answers are always the same: Abandon freedoms. Strip the People of any rights. Dictate from the top down and arrest anyone who gets in your way.
Welcome to the Land of the Free. I hope you are prepared for what looks to be coming, because this isn’t America anymore, folks. This is Amerika, and the Constitutional rights you thought you had are about to be written right off the books.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2327811/posts