The swine flu vaccine has been hit by new cancer fears after a German health expert gave a shock warning about its safety.
Lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg has said that there are many risks associated with the vaccine for the H1N1 virus.
He has grave reservations about the firm Novartis who are developing the vaccine and testing it in Germany. The vaccination is injected “with a very hot needle”, Wodarg said.
The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals and "we do not know if there could be an allergic reaction".
But more importantly, some people fear that the risk of cancer could be increased by injecting the cells.
The vaccine - as Johannes Löwer, president of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, has pointed out - can also cause worse side effects than the actual swine flu virus.
Wodrag also described people’s fear of the pandemic as an "orchestration": “It is great business for the pharmaceutical industry,” he told the ‘Neuen Presse’.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/07/swine-flu-health-expert-warning/does-virus-vaccine-increase-risk-of-cancer.html
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
$1,000 a day fines for not submitting to vaccination in Massachusetts
Regarding the question earlier about whether Massachusetts passed a law mandating vaccination, John Harvey, a member of the Australian Vaccine Network group, has gone through the bill. His assessment below confirms that the bill indeed allows for forced vaccination, $1,000 per day fines and quarantines (which is frankly, better than not having quarantines as an option):
Here is the link to the bill: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf)
and to the article originally alerting people to this: (http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html)
Winnie
The following is from John:
Actually, I’m afraid it is true. The Bill has already been passed by the lower house, and it seems deliberately drafted to allow for enforcement of orders of the widest possible scope.
The Bill, which amends various parts of Massachussets’s General Laws, is directly accessible from the Massachusetts Legislature’s site, at <http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf>. The document is only 380 kB in size, and is worth downloading. Despite being riddled with mistakes in spelling and punctuation, unless somebody has forged an entire government web site, this is the real thing.
Natural News (which gave the above link) quotes some of the Bill’s juiciest parts at <http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html>. But it doesn’t mention some of the most concerning parts of the Bill.
Take, for instance, the Bill’s provision of the right of the commissioner to make an order -- any order. Section 13 amends the older law by replacing its section 95. The new section 95 provides that, once such an order is made, anybody refusing to comply with it may be fined up to USD 1000 per day of “violation” and imprisoned (lines 384 to 387). But
[Section 95(a)]
“It shall not be a defense to aprosecution for this offense t hat the commissioner or the local public healt h authority erroneously determined that noncompliance would pose a serious danger to public healt h, if the commissioner or local public health authorit y was acting in good faith under color of official authority” (Iines 387 to 391).
In plain English, if the commissioner makes an order for, say, compulsory medical treatment upon the evidence of hearsay claims that without it a person poses a serious public risk, and that person refuses the treatment, he or she may be imprisoned and fined; and if it later is revealed that the person posed no risk, that the hearsay was marketing material manufactured for the purpose, and that the commissioner was derelict in his duty, the person fined will have no right of recompense: he or she will still be in the wrong. “Violation” even of an order not based on a perception of serious risk is subject to USD1000/day fines (see lines 387 to 391).
But here is the most serious part I’ve yet seen in the document [section 95(b)]:
“Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public healt h authorit y within its jurisdict ion 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 authorit y may exercise the following authority:
“(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and
“(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual” (lines 399 to 408).
There is no suggestion that whether a vaccine is “reasonably likely to lead to serious harm” would be open to test by a court; it appears to be a matter for the commissioner’s judgement. In any case, no court is likely ever to conclude that serious harm is “reasonably likely” in any medically usual individuals without overwhelming evidence to overturn the usual presumption.
The only small light the new section 95 will offer in all this destruction of fundamental human rights is this:
[section 95(b)]
“An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccinat ion 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 uncertaint y 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 authorit y operating wit hin its jurisdiction” (lines 409 to 414)
and this:
[section 95(c)]
“If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontaminat ion or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court. During the t ime 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 decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 425 to 431).
This pinprick of light is, of course, the right to refuse -- which refusal may be effectively punished without trial.
Following that is a provision that on the surface is more innocuous but actually serves an insidious purpose:
[Section 95]
“(d) (1) When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdict ion reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condit ion that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under sect ion 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public healt h 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 condit ion and to obtain contact information, including but not limited to the persons residence and employment addresses, date of birth, and telephone numbers.
“(2) If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to sect ion 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 condit ion that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 432 to 443).
In plain English, this provides that the commissioner, based solely upon his fallible beliefs and without need for a warrant or court order, may choose to arrest any person; subject him or her to brainwashing techniques; and keep him or her in indefinite detention without charge or trial on the basis that the person is unwilling or unable to supply a particular name or address and that the commissioner, with no evidence either way, is uncertain whether the person has been exposed to a serious disease -- which means anybody at all.
On the basis of its section 13 alone, it’s evident that this Bill is perhaps the most serious attack on U.S. constitutional rights and fundamental human rights in the United States that has been mounted in modern times.
The history of the Bill appearing below (from http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/s02028.htm; with apologies for the peculiar U.S. date format) suggests, and Natural News states, that the Bill has passed in the Senate already (and evidently did so unanimously); and that its only potential barrier to becoming law lies in mobilising the House to strike it down.
One can be sure that if it passes into law, it will be used; and that it will be treated as a paradigm for further Bills in the U.S. and in other countries.
The conspiracy theorists, it seems, were right all along.
The defence of fundamental human rights is something that cannot be left to others. If we do not act in their defence, they will be violated by all the largest vested interests and will come to be regarded as unnecessary, impractical anachronisms. The time to defend those rights is not tomorrow.
Cheers --
John
History of An Act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the Commonwealth:
4/6/2009SReported from the committee on Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
4/6/2009SNew draft of S18 and H108
4/6/2009SBill reported favorably by committee and referred to the Senate Committee On Ethics and Rules
4/8/2009SDischarged to the Senate Committee On Ways and Means
4/27/2009SCommittee recommended ought to pass with an amendment
4/27/2009SRules suspended
4/27/2009SRead second, amended (as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means) and ordered to a third reading
4/28/2009SRead third (title changed)
4/28/2009SAmendment rejected
4/28/2009SAmendment adopted
4/28/2009SPassed to be engrossed - 36 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 32)
4/30/2009HRead; and referred to the House Committee On Ways and Means
Here is the link to the bill: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf)
and to the article originally alerting people to this: (http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html)
Winnie
The following is from John:
Actually, I’m afraid it is true. The Bill has already been passed by the lower house, and it seems deliberately drafted to allow for enforcement of orders of the widest possible scope.
The Bill, which amends various parts of Massachussets’s General Laws, is directly accessible from the Massachusetts Legislature’s site, at <http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf>. The document is only 380 kB in size, and is worth downloading. Despite being riddled with mistakes in spelling and punctuation, unless somebody has forged an entire government web site, this is the real thing.
Natural News (which gave the above link) quotes some of the Bill’s juiciest parts at <http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html>. But it doesn’t mention some of the most concerning parts of the Bill.
Take, for instance, the Bill’s provision of the right of the commissioner to make an order -- any order. Section 13 amends the older law by replacing its section 95. The new section 95 provides that, once such an order is made, anybody refusing to comply with it may be fined up to USD 1000 per day of “violation” and imprisoned (lines 384 to 387). But
[Section 95(a)]
“It shall not be a defense to aprosecution for this offense t hat the commissioner or the local public healt h authority erroneously determined that noncompliance would pose a serious danger to public healt h, if the commissioner or local public health authorit y was acting in good faith under color of official authority” (Iines 387 to 391).
In plain English, if the commissioner makes an order for, say, compulsory medical treatment upon the evidence of hearsay claims that without it a person poses a serious public risk, and that person refuses the treatment, he or she may be imprisoned and fined; and if it later is revealed that the person posed no risk, that the hearsay was marketing material manufactured for the purpose, and that the commissioner was derelict in his duty, the person fined will have no right of recompense: he or she will still be in the wrong. “Violation” even of an order not based on a perception of serious risk is subject to USD1000/day fines (see lines 387 to 391).
But here is the most serious part I’ve yet seen in the document [section 95(b)]:
“Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public healt h authorit y within its jurisdict ion 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 authorit y may exercise the following authority:
“(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and
“(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual” (lines 399 to 408).
There is no suggestion that whether a vaccine is “reasonably likely to lead to serious harm” would be open to test by a court; it appears to be a matter for the commissioner’s judgement. In any case, no court is likely ever to conclude that serious harm is “reasonably likely” in any medically usual individuals without overwhelming evidence to overturn the usual presumption.
The only small light the new section 95 will offer in all this destruction of fundamental human rights is this:
[section 95(b)]
“An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccinat ion 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 uncertaint y 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 authorit y operating wit hin its jurisdiction” (lines 409 to 414)
and this:
[section 95(c)]
“If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontaminat ion or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court. During the t ime 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 decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 425 to 431).
This pinprick of light is, of course, the right to refuse -- which refusal may be effectively punished without trial.
Following that is a provision that on the surface is more innocuous but actually serves an insidious purpose:
[Section 95]
“(d) (1) When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdict ion reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condit ion that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under sect ion 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public healt h 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 condit ion and to obtain contact information, including but not limited to the persons residence and employment addresses, date of birth, and telephone numbers.
“(2) If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to sect ion 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 condit ion that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 432 to 443).
In plain English, this provides that the commissioner, based solely upon his fallible beliefs and without need for a warrant or court order, may choose to arrest any person; subject him or her to brainwashing techniques; and keep him or her in indefinite detention without charge or trial on the basis that the person is unwilling or unable to supply a particular name or address and that the commissioner, with no evidence either way, is uncertain whether the person has been exposed to a serious disease -- which means anybody at all.
On the basis of its section 13 alone, it’s evident that this Bill is perhaps the most serious attack on U.S. constitutional rights and fundamental human rights in the United States that has been mounted in modern times.
The history of the Bill appearing below (from http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/s02028.htm; with apologies for the peculiar U.S. date format) suggests, and Natural News states, that the Bill has passed in the Senate already (and evidently did so unanimously); and that its only potential barrier to becoming law lies in mobilising the House to strike it down.
One can be sure that if it passes into law, it will be used; and that it will be treated as a paradigm for further Bills in the U.S. and in other countries.
The conspiracy theorists, it seems, were right all along.
The defence of fundamental human rights is something that cannot be left to others. If we do not act in their defence, they will be violated by all the largest vested interests and will come to be regarded as unnecessary, impractical anachronisms. The time to defend those rights is not tomorrow.
Cheers --
John
History of An Act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the Commonwealth:
4/6/2009SReported from the committee on Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
4/6/2009SNew draft of S18 and H108
4/6/2009SBill reported favorably by committee and referred to the Senate Committee On Ethics and Rules
4/8/2009SDischarged to the Senate Committee On Ways and Means
4/27/2009SCommittee recommended ought to pass with an amendment
4/27/2009SRules suspended
4/27/2009SRead second, amended (as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means) and ordered to a third reading
4/28/2009SRead third (title changed)
4/28/2009SAmendment rejected
4/28/2009SAmendment adopted
4/28/2009SPassed to be engrossed - 36 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 32)
4/30/2009HRead; and referred to the House Committee On Ways and Means
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Texas Docs Uncertain About Recommending HPV Vaccine
Half of Texas physicians who responded to an online survey said they do not always recommend vaccination against human papillomavirus to prevent cervical cancer.
Of 1,122 survey participants, 48.5% said they always recommend HPV vaccines to girls, Jessica Kahn, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues reported in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
Two thirds of respondents said they are likely to recommend vaccination to boys if the vaccine is approved for that indication.
A majority disagreed with mandated vaccination.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/15408
Of 1,122 survey participants, 48.5% said they always recommend HPV vaccines to girls, Jessica Kahn, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues reported in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
Two thirds of respondents said they are likely to recommend vaccination to boys if the vaccine is approved for that indication.
A majority disagreed with mandated vaccination.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/15408
Sunday, August 2, 2009
New York State makes flu shots compulsory despite nurses opposition
Why, if the nurses don't want to be forced to vaccinate, are they not up in arms about the fact that vaccination has been compulsory for children in the US since 1978 with NY being one of the states that does not have a philosophical exemption? The shoe is now on the other foot and they feel the pain. It is obvious that nurses know and have known that vaccination is not safe and not effective. It has taken this to finally get them active in saying so.
*******************************
The New York State Nurses Association has strongly opposed a regulation that would require every healthcare worker in the state to be immunized for influenza.
Despite these objections, the New York State Hospital Planning and Review Council has adopted the proposal as an emergency rule that could go into effect before this winter’s flu season. The rule affects all healthcare personnel, both paid and unpaid, who interact with patients in hospitals, diagnostic and treatment centers, certified home health agencies, long-term healthcare programs, AIDS home care programs, licensed home care services, and hospices.
In its testimony, the association called the council’s action a “scorched earth” approach. “While we encourage nurses to be immunized for the flu, we do not agree that nurses should be required to get immunizations as a condition of employment,” said Eileen Avery, RN, associate director of the association’s Education, Practice & Research Program.
“The seasonal flu vaccine is not 100 percent effective and sometimes is highly ineffective, as it was in 2005 and 2007,” Avery said. “There is no guarantee that in any given year, the public will benefit from mandatory immunization of healthcare providers.”
http://story.australianherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/c08dd24cec417021/id/525827/cs/1/
*******************************
The New York State Nurses Association has strongly opposed a regulation that would require every healthcare worker in the state to be immunized for influenza.
Despite these objections, the New York State Hospital Planning and Review Council has adopted the proposal as an emergency rule that could go into effect before this winter’s flu season. The rule affects all healthcare personnel, both paid and unpaid, who interact with patients in hospitals, diagnostic and treatment centers, certified home health agencies, long-term healthcare programs, AIDS home care programs, licensed home care services, and hospices.
In its testimony, the association called the council’s action a “scorched earth” approach. “While we encourage nurses to be immunized for the flu, we do not agree that nurses should be required to get immunizations as a condition of employment,” said Eileen Avery, RN, associate director of the association’s Education, Practice & Research Program.
“The seasonal flu vaccine is not 100 percent effective and sometimes is highly ineffective, as it was in 2005 and 2007,” Avery said. “There is no guarantee that in any given year, the public will benefit from mandatory immunization of healthcare providers.”
http://story.australianherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/c08dd24cec417021/id/525827/cs/1/
Government Swine Flu Advisor On Vaccine Maker Payroll
MANY people seem genuinely baffled that western governments are hyping the arrival of a swine flu pandemic as if it’s the greatest threat to humanity since the bubonic plague, despite the relatively low number of deaths from the virus, unaware that the pharmaceutical industry has been intimately joined at the hip with the state for decades.
Another illustration of that fact is the revelation that one of the UK government’s top advisors on swine flu also happens to be a sitting board member of GlaxoSmithKline, the company selling dangerous and untested swine flu vaccines, as well as anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, to the NHS.
“Professor Sir Roy Anderson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), a 20-strong task force drawing up the action plan for the virus. Yet he also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline,” reports the Daily Mail.
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/government-swine-flu-advisor-on-vaccine-maker-payroll/
July 4th 2009 - Scotsman newspaper says 40 people a day will die from swine flu within a month
From: Forty people a day could die from swine flu by next month by Shan Ross
Source: The Scotsman, 7/4/2009.
Via: 
HighBeam™ Research
Copyright 2009 The Scotsman
1.3 Billion Chinese. 1668 H1N1 Cases. Zero Deaths. Pandemic?
A Chinese pharmaceutical firm has begun a two-month clinical test of the country's first domestically produced swine flu vaccine, state media reported on Wednesday. http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/07/13-billion-chinese-1668-h1n1-cases-zero-deaths-pandemic.html
Hualan Biological Engineering Inc completed the vaccine last month and will test it on more than 2,000 volunteers in the city of Taizhou in the eastern province of Jiangsu, Xinhua news agency said, citing a company official.
It said the vaccine for the A(H1N1) virus could hit the market in September -- ahead of the prime winter flu season -- if the trials are successful and that the company could make up to 600,000 doses a day.
The race for a vaccine has heated up, with the World Health Organization's top vaccine researcher, Marie-Paule Kieny, warning this month that all countries need access to vaccines as the virus was "unstoppable".
China has seen 1,668 cases of the virus, according to health ministry statistics, but no deaths have since been reported.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Mass health-worker absenteeism feared
Doctors and nurses' aversion to flu shots endangers plan to vaccinate them first so they are able to treat others
Hospital workers are supposed to be first in line for any pandemic influenza vaccine so they can keep Canadian hospitals running during an outbreak – but that strategy hinges on workers agreeing to take an unproven vaccine for an uncertain threat.
Across Canada, somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent of health-care workers opt for a flu shot each season, despite extensive efforts to persuade the entire work force to get immunized. In a normal flu season, that's not a major problem.
But in a serious outbreak of H1N1, the unwillingness of large numbers of doctors, nurses, paramedics and others could lead to soaring absenteeism rates, draining the health-care system of workers just as they are needed most. Faced with lesser risks, Canadian health officials have tried to make flu shots mandatory, but those efforts have typically failed, with the rights of the individual trumping any broader societal concern.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mass-health-worker-absenteeism-feared/article1225296/
Hospital workers are supposed to be first in line for any pandemic influenza vaccine so they can keep Canadian hospitals running during an outbreak – but that strategy hinges on workers agreeing to take an unproven vaccine for an uncertain threat.
Across Canada, somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent of health-care workers opt for a flu shot each season, despite extensive efforts to persuade the entire work force to get immunized. In a normal flu season, that's not a major problem.
But in a serious outbreak of H1N1, the unwillingness of large numbers of doctors, nurses, paramedics and others could lead to soaring absenteeism rates, draining the health-care system of workers just as they are needed most. Faced with lesser risks, Canadian health officials have tried to make flu shots mandatory, but those efforts have typically failed, with the rights of the individual trumping any broader societal concern.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mass-health-worker-absenteeism-feared/article1225296/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)