Saturday, September 5, 2009
HIV/AIDS Epidemic Calling Out for Action by Dept. of Public Health
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Mandatory Vaccination in Massachusetts? Connect the Dots
Many citizens are rightly worried about S2028, the "pandemic disaster preparation" bill. We also need to be worried about the vaccination law now on the books in Massachusetts:
Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.
Vaccination for what is unspecified. Granted, the fine is only five dollars, but the mandate is disturbing.
Pending bill S2028 would actually remove the "require and enforce" language, but mandate isolation or quarantine for a refuser:
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... (Line 409)
But nothing in S2028 specifically overturns Ch. 111, sec. 181. Where does that leave us?Further, Ch. 111, Section 6 gives total authority to the Commissioner of Public Health to determine what disease is "deemed dangerous to public health" and thus warranting vaccination.
MGL, Ch. 111, Section 6:
The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health....
DPH Commissioner Auerbach's Testimony on S2028 Pandemic Bill
Who wrote the Pandemic bill S2028? DPH Commissioner John Auerbach answered this at the March 26 hearing on the bill (then S18).
As we noted, Senator Richard Moore, chief sponsor of the civil-liberties-defying pandemic preparation bill S2028, referred to it as the "pandemic flu bill" at the beginning of the March 26 hearing.
In typical non-transparent Massachusetts Legislature fashion, the hearing came with little fanfare. The hoi polloi have to be kept in the dark anytime their individual freedoms are threatened. Notably, no citizens opposing the bill were present -- since few knew of the bill or the hearing at that time. (Fortunately, CatchoftheDay Video News was there to record it.)
But the big guy, Department of Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach, was there, speaking in support of the bill for his department and the other medical establishment organizations that (he explained) worked together to draft it: the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the Medical Reserve Corps of Massachusetts, and the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. Auerbach said that "virtually everyone is in favor of" the bill. He said it's a "critical piece of the Commonwealth's preparations in case of a pandemic outbreak or other critical emergencies" (unspecified).
Clearly the medical establishment has a very different outlook on this bill from the general populace. Besides their close ties to Big Pharma and vaccination dogma, S2028 shows they are very concerned with the liability issues of offering emergency treatment "outside standard clinical practice" -- and illnesses resulting from the dangerous vaccines they plan to administer.
The majority of the people seem to have awakened to the dangers of vaccines, and no longer trust any level of government -- or even the professional elites. Too bad they weren't able to make it to the March 26 hearing.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
HIV/AIDS Exempted from Pandemic Control Bill H2028
The pandemic emergency bill S2028 makes an exception for one specific disease, HIV/AIDS, from isolation and quarantine strategies. See lines 456-458:
In this section [re: isolation and quarantine], “disease or condition dangerous to the public health” does not include acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
While it doesn’t make sense to forcibly isolate or quarantine HIV/AIDS carriers, why not employ some of the other strategies enumerated in this bill to contain disease, such as:
- mandatory testing for the disease (lines 423-424).
- entry into premises (without warrant), where it’s suspected the disease is being communicated to others, and closing the premises or forbidding “assemblages of persons” there (lines 78-84 and 351-367).
After all, AIDS activists are always saying more needs to be done to combat the “epidemic”.
Well, our Department of Public Health would never do that, as it would “stigmatize” people with HIV/AIDS. How how could the state possibly condone targeting of gay bars, houses of prostitution, or drug dens where the disease is clearly spread? That would be an outrage on the scale of Stonewall! It would be interfering with freedom of choice and expression! How could it possibly recommend HIV/AIDS testing -- even before the “marriage” of two men? (In fact, the DPH under Governor Romney eliminated all STD testing before marriage. See Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004.)
The DPH believes it’s enough to push condom use and frequent HIV testing.
Is it just a coincidence that our Commissioner of Public Health, John Auerbach, is openly homosexual and “married” to another man?
What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.
What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.
For more on Commissioner Auerbach, see:
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Massachusetts Pandemic Powers: Quarantine for Mental Illness?
To Domenico Bettinelli @ BettNet (re: your post "Massachusetts is NOT forcing vaccines on you"):
OK, Domenico. You make the point that mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.
You’re correct that bill S2028 reads:
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. (S2028, lines 409-414.)
Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:
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 ...[they] 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 ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)
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. (Lines 464-469.)
This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”.
Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with who knows what? (No, I’m not speaking first person.)
Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in forced quarantine? Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)
And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.
S2028 even includes a provision “to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.
C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.
Let’s end with this. Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:
Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health.
And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above: “injuries, health conditions, and threats to health.” All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.
And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!
OK, Domenico. You make the point that mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.
You’re correct that bill S2028 reads:
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. (S2028, lines 409-414.)
Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:
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 ...[they] 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 ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)
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. (Lines 464-469.)
This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”.
Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with who knows what? (No, I’m not speaking first person.)
Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in forced quarantine? Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)
And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.
S2028 even includes a provision “to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.
C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.
Let’s end with this. Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:
Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health.
And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above: “injuries, health conditions, and threats to health.” All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.
And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!
Pandemic Bill S2028: What Do Its Sponsors Really Have in Mind?
WorldNetDaily has followed up our post on S2028, focusing on Massachusetts but also referring to worrisome legal actions in other states.
Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)
Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?
It's no wonder so many Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)
As MassResistance has reported, Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?
Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)
Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?
It's no wonder so many Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)
As MassResistance has reported, Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Massachusetts Pandemic Bill S2028 Update
Update to yesterday's post on S2028 "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" Bill:
We just heard back from the House Ways and Means Committee staffer, who said that the Committee has not yet decided what to do with the bill. To paraphrase his comments:
It's been filed in past sessions but went nowhere. With the new Speaker (Robert DeLeo), it's not clear what will happen with it this session. The Committee is aware of issues with the bill -- some are valid, some not (he said). The Committee is getting lots of calls about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)