Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266

    Unvaccinated people a public health threat? Nope, people who take antibiotics are the

    Unvaccinated people a public health threat? Nope, people who take antibiotics are the real danger

    Tuesday, March 06, 2012
    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)




    537Share [Share this Article]

    (NaturalNews) Vaccine pushers often resort to an interesting fear tactic to try to mandate vaccine obedience among the masses: They insist that those who are unvaccinated are a health threat to the rest of the vaccinated population because the vaccinated people might get infected by the unvaccinated disease carriers!

    The quack logic of such a claim should be self-evident. If vaccines protect people from infectious disease, then vaccinated people should not be concerned at all about being around unvaccinated people. After all, the vaccine made them all "immune," right?

    But of course that's all propaganda. Vaccines don't really work at all. They are marketed under a blanket of disease hysteria and pimped by a cult following of medicalized quacks and needle junkies who abandoned real science long ago. After all, who needs real science when you've got the CDC marketing all the fear for you? The CDC is to medicine what George Bush was to the war industry -- spread a little fear and the profits roll in.

    The real risk to others? People who routinely take antibiotics
    As it turns out, the real health risk that does exist in person-to-person exposure of infectious disease comes from people who routinely take antibiotics. Those who take the most antibiotics become drug-resistant bacteria factories, and they can spread their drug-resistant strains to others around them. Their risk of developing superbugs rises proportionally to the frequency and duration of their taking prescription antibiotics. (MRSA superbugs actually caused by widespread antibiotics use in the 1960s)

    The most dangerous person in your family, it turns out, is not the "unvaccinated" person but the one taking antibiotics! They are human breeding grounds for bacterial mutations that can be downright deadly.

    Why hospitals are so dangerous to your health
    That's why informed people know the hospital is the most dangerous place you can go, other than working in a homemade meth lab of course. Hospitals are where superbugs pass easily from patient to doctor, and then from doctor to another patient. Hospital superbugs are spread by the medical staff, mostly because they routinely fail to wash their hands before touching patients.

    As NaturalNews reported in January, 2010, a whopping 247 people die every day in U.S. hospitals from medical staff failing to wash their hands. (247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands)

    This is like a jumbo jet falling out of the sky and killing everyone on board every single day. It's like a 9/11 terrorist attacking happening every two weeks. This is one of the most alarming (and preventable) causes of death in America today and virtually no one even talks about it.

    Doctors, of course, strongly contribute to the development of superbugs by handing out antibiotics as if they were Halloween candy. Someone shows up at the office with a sniffle, and the busy doctor scribbles out a prescription for some fashionable new antibiotic that earns him perks from the young drug rep whose PC database tracks every name-brand prescription he writes. The patient, meanwhile, spends a pocket fortune on a useless drug that's actually quite dangerous. Not only does it increase that patient's chances of developing a mutant strain of drug-resistant bacteria; it also flushes antibiotics down the drain and contaminates the environment downstream.

    So if you're walking around in public suspiciously glancing around to see who might be sniffling or sneezing, clear your head and think about reality for a second. The CDC wants you to stupidly believe all the unvaccinated people are a threat to your health, when in reality people who consciously refuse vaccines tend to be far healthier and get sick far less often than the hypochondriac dweebs who rush out to get vaccinated every few months.

    Doctors and drugs are the greatest threat to your health - far greater than terrorism
    The real people who are a threat to your health are not just the pill-popping antibiotics consumers, but also:

    • The psyched-out grandma on psychotropic drugs barreling down the road behind the wheel of a 1978 Buick. (Driving While Medicated...)

    • The teen schoolboy who was diagnosed with depression and put on SSRI drugs that make him feel violently suicidal.

    • The pediatrician who wants to inject your child with chemotherapy to "prevent" cancer and insist he's going to call CPS if you don't let him poison your child.

    • The drug addict pharmacist who, in between incorrectly filling your prescription with random deadly chemicals, snorts up his own private concoction of controlled substances in the back room.

    • The oncologist who misdiagnosed you with breast cancer but wants to poison you with five rounds of chemotherapy "just to be sure." (Oh yeah, I bet he never told you that he PROFITS from selling you the chemotherapy drugs that poison you...)

    • The school bus driver with a heart condition who takes an extra dose of deadly statin drugs and suffers a fatal heart muscle breakdown while behind the wheel of a bus carrying 58 schoolchildren toward a railroad crossing.

    These are the real threats to your safety... not a bunch of healthy people who deliberately refuse to be injected with hazardous vaccines.

    But of course the medical establishment doesn't want you to be aware of any risks associated with using their products. All their drugs are perfectly safe! Perfectly effective! Perfectly priced! Perfectly profitable! There's nothing wrong with them, by God, or the FDA would never have approved them, would they?

    Learn more: Unvaccinated people a public health threat? Nope, people who take antibiotics are the real danger




    Unvaccinated people a public health threat? Nope, people who take antibiotics are the real danger

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Monday, March 5, 2012
    Corporate Media Blackout On AB 2109 Threatening Vaccine Rights
    Sayer Ji, Contributing Writer
    Activist Post

    On Feb. 23rd, 2012, an assembly bill (AB 2109) was submitted to the California Legislature by state assemblyman and pediatrician, Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), which will make it harder for parents to refuse to vaccinate their children. The bill is sponsored by the California Medical Association (CMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the California Immunization Coalition.

    Right now in California if a child is enrolled in school their parents are legally required to have them vaccinated. However, exemptions may be obtained by parents who object for religious or philosophical reasons if they sign the portion of the immunization record that says immunizations are contrary to their beliefs and that they understand that in the case of an outbreak of a ‘vaccine-preventable’ disease the child may be temporarily excluded from attending school/child care institutions “for his/her protection.”

    If Bill AB 2109 passes, by July 1st, 2013, parents who wish to opt out will be required to bring with them on the day of enrollment a written statement from a medical doctor or conventional “health care practitioner” that states they have been informed of the benefits and risks of vaccines and the communicable disease they are said to prevent. The parent would also be required to submit a written statement that indicates that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner.

    As first reported by Dr. Tim O’ Shea in the Feb. 23rd Doctor Within Newsletter:

    "This bill, if passed, would require parents to obtain the signature of a 'health care practitioner for a personal beliefs/religious exemption. MDs, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants can sign.

    Naturopaths and chiropractors cannot. The signature will need to be obtained on a separate form provided by the Department of Public Health which states that the health care practitioner has provided risk and benefit information to the parent."


    Thus far, there has been virtually no mainstream media coverage of Bill AB2109. This is a curious fact, considering that if it passes it will be illegal not to submit your children to a medical procedure without the explicit permission of the conventional medical system. Is this not the very antithesis of the meaning of health freedom, in a country that prides itself on its freedom-loving, Constitutionally underwritten principles? As Dr. Tim O’ Shea explains:

    Let's remove the word vaccination from the whole discussion for a minute here. Let's pretend this whole issue isn't about vaccines at all, but rather about any other medical procedure. Got that picture?

    OK so then tell me, what kind of political system, or medical system anywhere on earth would presume to make it a law for you to obtain permission to opt out of any medical procedure, which decisions are completely your choice in the first place? Permission not to get medicine? See what I'm getting at here?

    If Dr. Tim O’ Shea’s predictions are correct and California falls, like Washington state recently did with the loss of their philosophical exemptions, the rest of the domino states are likely to follow suit in the next 2 years.

    In other words, this stealthily submitted and barely noticed bill is setting a dangerous precedent and may represent the beginning of the end for philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions in the United States -- with mandatory vaccinations likely following close behind. Now that children, according to the CDC immunization guidelines, are required to have an increasingly suspect 60 vaccines by age 6 (with dozens of additional vaccines in the developmental pipeline) how can we stand by idly while their health and health rights, and those of all future generations, are being serious jeopardized and legislated away into oblivion?

    Please help to spread the word about Bill AB 2109 now, before it is too late.

    Sources:
    Assembly Bill 2109
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...introduced.pdf

    Dr. Tim O’ Shea’s Feb. 23rd Newsletter
    END OF VACCINE EXEMPTIONS IN CALIFORNIA? | GreenMedInfo | Blog entry | Natural Medicine | Alternative Medicine | Integrative Medicine | Consumer Advocacy

    Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

    This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.





    Activist Post: Corporate Media Blackout On AB 2109 Threatening Vaccine Rights

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Monday, March 5, 2012
    Vermont Senate passes bill ending philosophical exemptions from school vaccination requirements
    Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
    Activist Post

    The Vermont Senate recently passed a bill that is now on its way to the state House, which, if signed into law, would end the ability for parents to avoid getting their children vaccinated based on philosophical grounds.

    This means that children will not be able to go to school if their parents refuse the vaccines, as they can no longer be exempt from the requirement based on parents' philosophical opposition.

    No matter how you feel about vaccines, I hope that you recognize and respect the right of individuals to make the ultimate decision when it comes to their own health and the health of their children; it is a right which is becoming increasingly stripped away from the people of the United States.

    In a police state like the United States where you can be held indefinitely without charge or trial or deemed a possible terrorist for just about everything, this might seem like a relatively small issue to some. I do not think that the right to choose what goes into our bodies and the bodies of our children is at all a small matter, as it can only lead to more government intervention in our lives which is the last thing the American people need.

    While a religious exemption would supposedly remain in place, this does not mean much given that both senators and Vermont Health Department officials have agreed that there are no standards in Vermont law which define religious belief.


    One would assume that Christian Scientists would be exempt from this law due to their well-known beliefs, but could an anti-vaccine campaigner claim that they have a religious belief which prevents them from allowing their children to be vaccinated under this law? That much is unclear at this point.
    Some think that no such explicit definition should be in law at all such as the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, Mathew Staver.

    Liberty Counsel is an international non-profit organization which focuses on litigation and policy promotion aimed at advancing religious freedom, and according to their website, “the sanctity of life, and the family” with offices in multiple states and Israel.

    “It can be a slippery slope to try to determine whether a person’s religious belief is valid or not,” Staver said.

    “It puts the courts or the government in the role of deciding what is considered orthodox or not orthodox, approved or not approved, as it relates to religious belief,” he added, according to the Associated Press.

    I think his point is quite strong, as government has absolutely no right to meddle in the private religious lives of Americans, especially the ability to say, “This religious belief is okay and this one is not.”

    The manager for the Vermont Department of Health’s immunization program, Christine Finley, said that parents just need to sign a form requesting a religious exemption to get one.

    “Nothing would stop you if you wanted to exempt your children on religious grounds,” she claimed.

    However, if someone does not have a “religious” objection and instead one based on health concerns, they might have to lie in filling out such a form.

    Even drawing a line between what a religious vs. philosophical objection really is would be difficult. Do you have to meet regularly and have rituals in order for it to transform from a mere philosophical position to a religious belief?

    This bill seems to be placing religious beliefs on a different playing field than other positions which are not based on religious dogma. I find this intellectual position repugnant, as I do not see any difference between the beliefs of, say, a nihilist and a Catholic in terms of the right of the individual to live their life according to such beliefs.

    If a philosophy is opposed to vaccinations, individuals who identify with it should have every right that someone with a religious objection would have. It seems almost absurd that this is even something that needs to be said.

    Thankfully, one senator, Philip Baruth, agreed with me in voting for the measure. Baruth, a Democrat, said that he objected to treating philosophical objections any differently than religious ones.

    Baruth stated he was “troubled though, that we would remove philosophical conviction as something that would be allowed to those who don’t profess an organized religion. It seems to me we’re moving down a path where we’re creating … a set of rights for people of professed, organized religion, and taking them away from people who have deeply held convictions but who do not in fact worship this or that higher being.”

    Baruth’s point is, in my opinion, very important and indeed it is quite troubling that the law would treat a philosophical position any different from a religious one.

    Senator Kevil Mullin, a Republican and chief sponsor of the Senate bill in Vermont, said that if they tried to remove both the religious exemption and the philosophical exemption it would most likely be challenged in court and struck down.

    Mullin said that he thinks many of the people who have taken the philosophical exemption in the past will not request a religious one if this becomes law.

    “In other states, immunization rates have gone up when they did away with the philosophical exemption,” he said.

    It is impossible to accurately say why this is; it could be due to those who took a philosophical exemption not wanting to lie in requesting a religious one, not knowing that they could still get their child exempted at all or potentially anything at all.

    Currently, 20 states in America allow a philosophical exemption from immunization requirements and every state except Mississippi and West Virginia allow a religious exemption.

    The state Health Department uses federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to construct their list of required and recommended vaccines for children to enter public schools or even licensed child care facilities.

    Just to enter kindergarten, children are required to receive three doses of hepatitis B vaccine, four doses of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, three doses of polio vaccine, three of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and one chicken pox vaccine as well.

    When the Vermont Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee met to take testimony on the legislation, a large group of parents attended and raised many concerns about the move to end the philosophical exemption. Some of the parents brought up the potential adverse reactions, sometimes fatal ones, which occur in a small percentage of those who receive the vaccines.

    Yet the state Health Commissioner Dr. Harry Chen and others testified that the scientific evidence of the benefits of vaccines outweighed the potentially fatal risks.

    Mullin utilized some rhetoric which, in my opinion, is deplorably manipulative in pushing for the legislation.

    “Many of us may not be in this chamber today if our parents and grandparents, great-grandparents had taken such a lenient approach to vaccinations and refused to be vaccinated for diseases like smallpox, polio and tuberculosis,” Mullins said.

    “We’re going to protect our kids in our public schools and early childhood facilities so they are not exposed to dangerous disease and illness,” Mullins said in an attempt to tug on the heart strings of legislators and leverage fear to his advantage.

    It remains to be seen if this will pass through the House and if more states will continue to eradicate the rights of parents to make the ultimate call on their child’s health, and if there will be a continued lopsided treatment of philosophical values and religious ones.

    Like I said, regardless of if you think vaccines are a godsend or a health hazard, this is the United States where we are supposed to respect the individual’s right to choose, and I would like to preserve that right in every possible aspect of our lives.

    Did I miss anything? Would you like to share your opinion, tip me off to a story you think I should cover or even submit your own work for publishing? Email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

    This article first appeared at EndtheLie.com. Read other contributed articles by Madison Ruppert here.

    Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com



    Activist Post: Vermont Senate passes bill ending philosophical exemptions from school vaccination requirements

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •