Urgent: Overwhelming National Response Required to
Stop Mandatory Vaccinations
[Editor's Note: If you don't take action now, you won't be given the
choice to refuse being vaccinated in the future. If you've been following
our posted articles about the NWO's Destroy America Plan, you should know
that they will use vaccines to ID and mind control you with embedded micro
chips and also 'save" you from smallpox while possibly giving you the AIDS
virus (or other bioengineered diseases) as they did in Africa in the late
70's . The reason 85% of the black population in Africa has AIDS is because
the World Health Organization (UN) gave them the disease via smallpox vaccines
distributed in the late 1970's as documented in the books of Dr. Len Horowitz
and others. I disagree with the recommendations made at the bottom of this
article to allow for 'some' new controls. Don't give them another inch
of rope to hang you. Take action NOW and assert your opinions LOUDLY .
Resist while you still have the opportunity. ...]
December 27, 2001
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/natlresponsemandatoryvaccines27dec01.shtml
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Walters
To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:@pearl.mhtc.net
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:26 AM
Subject: Important...........!!!
Greetings,
I usually don't send out anything as large as what I've posted below,
put this is very important stuff. I received it from Dr. Mercola,
M.D. I have heard rumors about this for a month or so, but I never thought
our government would attempt anything this absurd.
The recent terrorist activities have allowed our politicians to attempt
to enact legislation that would never even be considered if people weren't
already panicked. This is Nazi Germany type legislation!!
I urge you to sign the petition to George W. Bush from the AAPS (below)
Then, pass this article on to everyone you know, especially your state
legislators. This needs to be stopped ASAP!!
Jim Walters
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
Sign Petition Against Model Legislation - 11/30/2001
Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) Turns Governors
into Dictators
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Since this is a bit of an unusual type of article I thought I would
put my comment first.
It appears some very dangerous legislation is being prepared to be
implemented in the US.
If this legislation passes, in brief:
1 - You will have a mandatory vaccination or you will be charged with
a crime
2 - You will get a mandatory medical exam, or you will be charged with
a crime
3 - Doctors will give the exam or you will be charged with a crime
4 - Your property can be seized if there is 'REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE"
that it may pose a public health hazard... it can be burned or destroyed
and you will NOT have recourse or compensation.
You can go to http://www.aapsonline.org/
and click on the Emergency Dictatorial Powers act in the left column. Then
click on the December 13th Action Alert which will provide information
on how to respond to your legislators on this issue.
broaden government access to private medical records;
greatly weaken protections against the taking of private property without
compensation;
criminalize refusal to be conscripted for public service or to take medical
treatment;
potentially increase the risk of infection to many individuals on the pretext
of protecting the common good;
subjugate scientific analysis and deliberation to the raw assertion of
power;
greatly expand the power of government to interfere with commerce;
and immunize state officials from sanctions against gross abuses of power.
Although certain extraordinary government interventions might be
warranted in a true emergency, the government already has significant emergency
powers as well as the ability to convene a special session of the legislature.
It is highly inadvisable to completely suspend our delicate system of checks
and balances upon the word of a Governor that an emergency requires it.
This Act, in effect, empowers the Governor to create a police state
by fiat, and for a sufficient length of time to destroy or muzzle his political
opposition.
The most telling sentence is: "The public health authority shall have
the power to enforce the provisions of this Act through the imposition
of fines and penalties, the issuance of orders, and such other remedies
as are provided by law, but nothing in this Section shall be construed
to limit specific enforcement powers enumerated in this Act." Article VIII
Section 802.
It is unlikely that the vast expansion of governmental powers would
be restricted to combating a smallpox outbreak. Once the precedent is established,
it could be expanded to other types of "emergencies."
This proposal violates the very principles that its author, Lawrence
O Gostin, has previously outlined, while giving them lip service. His article
recommends that "public health authorities should bear the burden of justification
and, therefore, should demonstrate
(1) a significant risk based on scientific evidence;
(2) the intervention's effectiveness by showing a reasonable fit between
ends and means;
(3) that economic costs are reasonable;
(4) that human rights burdens are reasonable...." (see JAMA 2000;283:3118-3122).
Background
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson is urging State legislatures to adopt the
Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, prepared by the Center for Law
and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities for
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This Act grants unprecedented and unchecked powers to the Governors
of the 50 States. It can be downloaded from http://www.publichealthlaw.net.
It is likely that HHS will tie passage of the Act to billions of dollars
in federal funding: the usual method of bribery/coercion to get States
to pass legislation that would otherwise never be considered.
Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said: "Tommy Thompson,
whom I have considered a friend for thirty years, should be ashamed of
himself for advocating this kind of Big Brother legislation. This is not
the Tommy Thompson we knew as a four-term governor of Wisconsin."
HHS is using the 9/11 emergency as a pretext to rush passage of an Act
that has been in the works for more than a year. Its main author, Lawrence
O. Gostin, was a member of Clinton's Task Force on Health Care Reform,
whose secret documents were exposed to public view as a result of the AAPS
lawsuit (AAPS et al v. Hillary Rodham Clinton et al.)
He was a member of Working Group 17, Bioethics, of Cluster V, The Ethical
Foundations of the New System, and also a member of the informal group
promoting Single Payer. It is odd that Tommy Thompson should be urging
adoption of a plan originating with the most extremist left wing of Clinton's
Health Care Task Force.
This legislation is a serious threat to our civil liberties. Indeed,
"this law treats American citizens as if they were the enemy," stated George
Annas, chairman of the Health Law Department at the Boston University School
of Public Health (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/25/01). It must be exposed
to the light of day in the next month and a half.
"If protests are sufficient and if conservative legislators in state
legislatures are properly alerted, perhaps there is a chance to beat back
this monster," Weyrich said.
Major Provisions
Declaring an Emergency: Under this Act, any Governor could appoint himself
dictator by declaring a "public health emergency." He doesn't even have
to consult anyone.
The Act requires that he "shall consult with the public health authority,"
but "nothing in the duty to consult ... shall be construed to limit the
Governor's authority to act without such consultation when the situation
calls for prompt and timely action."
The legislature is prohibited from intervening for 60 days, after which
it may terminate the state of emergency only by a two-thirds vote of both
chambers. (Apparently, it does not have the authority to find that the
state of emergency never really existed.) Article III, Section 305(c).
There is also the possibility that the Governor could declare a new emergency
as soon as his powers were about to expire.
What is a public health emergency? It is whatever the Governor decides
it should be. By the definition in the Act, it could be an "occurrence"-or
just an "imminent threat"-of basically any cause that involves a biological
agent or biological toxin that poses a "substantial risk" of a "significant
number" of human fatalities or disability. Article I, Section 104(g). Terrorism
need not be involved; any threat of an epidemic would suffice.
The Act does not define "substantial risk." Could it mean a 1-in-1,000,000
chance? Risks of that magnitude are already being invoked as a cause for
alarm, say of a measles outbreak with transmission through an unvaccinated
child, and a pretext for removing exemptions to mandatory vaccines. The
EPA also uses such low (and purely hypothetical) risk as the rationale
for very costly regulations, so the precedent is well-established.
Is a "significant number" five (the number of deaths from anthrax as
of the date of this writing); 24 (the number of deaths from chickenpox
in 1998 and 1999 combined, 12 of them in persons under the age of 20, used
as a reason for mandatory childhood vaccination); 100 cases of AIDS; or
is it thousands of deaths from smallpox, as most readers may assume-or
a single case?
It could be any of these because the definition is at the sole discretion
of the Governor. The most plausible of the dire threats generally cited
is a smallpox outbreak.
However, given the nature of the disease and advanced medicine and sanitation,
such an outbreak could be contained without any of the extreme measures
in this Act, just as in the 1970s. (See, for example, "Super Smallpox Saturdays?"
by Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, MD, http://WorldNetDaily.com,
Nov. 15, 2001.)
Because of the adverse side effects of the vaccine (including death),
more harm than good could be done by an ill-advised, unnecessary mass vaccination
campaign.
Patient Privacy Abolished: The Act would impose significant new reporting
requirements on physicians and pharmacists, further diminishing the confidentiality
of medical records.
Personal identifying information would have to be reported in writing,
without patient consent, in the event of "an unusual increase" in prescriptions
related to fever, respiratory, or gastrointestinal complaints that might
represent an epidemic disease or bioterrorism, or of any other illness
or health condition that could represent bioterrorism or epidemic or pandemic
disease. Such conditions are legion.
Gostin concedes that his privacy provision is based on his own model
privacy act of 1999, which apparently no state has adopted. Like the Clinton
privacy regulations that AAPS is now challenging in court, Gostin's view
of privacy is to allow unrestricted disclosure to federal authorities.
Section 506.
Unlimited Power: How would the Governor handle the emergency? By whatever
means he chose. He is under no obligation to use scientifically valid methods,
or to choose the least destructive method, or to perform any kind of risk-benefit
analysis.
He may suspend any regulatory statute, or the rules of any state agency,
if they would "prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action." Article III,
Section 303(a)(1). Among the laws to be suspended would probably be those
permitting religious, medical, or philosophical exemptions to mandatory
vaccines.
The Governor may not only utilize all the resources of the State and
its political subdivisions, but commandeer any private facilities or resources
considered necessary, and "take immediate possession thereof. Such materials
and facilities include, but are not limited to, communication devices,
carriers, real estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health care facilities."
Article IV Section 402(a). He may "compel a health care facility to
provide services," but it is not clear what means he may use to compel
its personnel to work (Article IV Section 402(b)), except that any physician
or other health care provider who refuses to perform medical examination
or testing as directed shall be liable for a misdemeanor. Article V Section
502(b).
The Governor may destroy any material or property "of which there is
reasonable cause to believe that it may endanger the public health." Article
IV Section 401(b). And while the State shall pay just compensation to the
owner of any facilities that are "lawfully taken" or appropriated (Article
IV Section 406), there is a huge exception:
"Compensation shall not be provided for facilities or materials that
are closed, evacuated, decontaminated, or destroyed when there is reasonable
cause to believe that they may endanger the public health pursuant to Section
401." Article IV Section 406.
The Governor is in charge of determining "reasonable cause." There is
a strong incentive for him to declare any losses to private owners to be
noncompensable.
"Reasonable cause" might mean "contaminated." Is the Senate Hart Office
Building contaminated with anthrax? Yes. Should it therefore be destroyed,
or subjected to fumigation with chemicals that would destroy much of the
equipment and furnishings? Most think not.
The problem is that given a sufficiently sensitive testing method, everything
is probably "contaminated" with almost everything else. Moreover, every
testing method has some level of false positives.
The late Conrad Chester of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated that
any place that has ever supported cattle has anthrax contamination (lecture
before Doctors for Disaster Preparedness annual meeting, 1996). The same
probably applies to any land that has supported sheep or goats, or any
land that has had the wind deposit soil from such an area.
In other words, anthrax spores are probably ubiquitous, though at a
concentration that very rarely causes any harm. Such harm as was done may
have been misdiagnosed by physicians who were unfamiliar with anthrax and
not specifically looking for it.
Under this law, nothing would stop the Governor from ordering a citizen
to turn over his house to be used as an isolation facility, and later destroying
the house on the grounds that it is contaminated. This order, like any
other, could be enforced at gunpoint by any law enforcement officer.
In a time of public hysteria, fanned by press coverage based on the
"if it bleeds, it leads" policy, common sense is likely to be an early
casualty. It is even possible that terrorists-or persons bent on radical
transformation of society and the American form of government-could deliberately
raise a false alarm and influence a Governor to take action that would
result in more damage to freedom than the terrorists themselves could ever
accomplish.
Or radical environmentalists (who haven't, to date, generally had the
label of terrorist applied to them) could bring about the destruction of
an activity that they object to (such as logging, cattle ranching, or modern
farming). There are no checks and balances in this Act to prevent such
an occurrence, and no meaningful accountability for the public officials
who carry out a basically misguided policy, however destructive.
Command and Control: The Act assumes that the best method to use in
an emergency is force and central control. There is no evidence that force
works better than leadership, which can bring out the best in citizens
coming together to meet the crisis, just as firefighters, police, medical
professionals, hotel owners, and other businessmen did in New York City.
Totalitarianism is not only evil but has had uniformly
disastrous results.
Although the world has 40 centuries of experience to show that the effect
of price controls on the economy is comparable to that of an asteroid impact
on the earth, the Act empowers the Governor to ration, fix prices, and
otherwise control the allocation, sale, use, or transportation of any item
as deemed "reasonable and necessary for emergency response."
This specifically includes firearms. Article IV Section 402(c) and Section
405(b). Moreover, the Governor can simply seize such items. Article IV
Section 402(a).
The Act grants Governors the exclusive power to control the expenditure
of funds appropriated for emergencies; the intent and priorities set by
the Legislature would be irrelevant.
The Governor may delegate powers at his sole discretion to unelected
political appointees.
Criminalizing Refusal of Medical Treatment: The Act empowers the public
health authority to decide upon medical treatment or immunizations and
to impose its view on individuals, who are liable for a misdemeanor should
they refuse.
Article V Section 504(b). Although it might in some circumstances be
prudent and justified to quarantine a person who refuses immunization during
an outbreak, it is tyrannical to criminalize the medical choice to decline
a treatment.
An immunization or treatment might well cause serious harm to certain
individuals even if the public health authority does not recognize that
it is "reasonably likely" to lead to "serious harm"-another two important
undefined terms. Article V Section 504(a)(4).
The Act gives the public health authority the right to isolate or quarantine
a person on an ex parte court order, with no hearing for at least 72 hours.
If the public health authority decides that an unvaccinated person is a
risk to others, even if uninfected, he could be quarantined.
Article V Section 503(e). It is quite possible that public health authorities
could force such a person from his home to a place of quarantine, where
he will be exposed to infected persons. Such places shall be maintained
in a safe and hygienic manner "to the extent possible," and "all reasonable
means shall be taken to prevent the transmission of infection among isolated
or quarantined individuals."
Article V Section 503(a). The Act itself thus implies that an uninfected
person is at risk by being placed in such a facility; it is quite likely
that he could be at greater risk than if he had the freedom to protect
himself as he saw fit. It is assumed that public health authorities will
be "reasonable"; however, this assumption is questionable.
Even now, children not vaccinated against hepatitis B are being excluded
from school even though there is NO risk that an uninfected child can transmit
the disease and a minuscule risk that he can acquire the disease at school.
Zero Accountability:
If the State does more harm than good through unfettered use of its
draconian power, it can rely on the state immunity clause:
"Neither the State, its political subdivisions, nor, except in cases
of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the Governor, the public health
authority, or any other State official referenced in this Act, is liable
for the death of or any injury to persons, or damage to property, as a
result of complying with or attempting to comply with this Act or any rule
or regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act."
Article VIII Section 804.
Note that the law would grant certain immunities even for deaths improperly
caused, and allows such immunity even for advisors who made recommendations
based on conflicts of interest.
An Alternate Proposal
Although this Act should be rejected, there are certain measures that
State governments might want to consider:
A reevaluation of the procedures for effectively quarantining persons
who are a significant demonstrable risk to others, while preserving due
process and substantive rights;
Improving overall preparedness for attacks with weapons of mass destruction:
upgrading and expanding facilities for the prompt detection and identification
of infectious agents, toxins, chemical weapons, and radioactivity;
evaluating and augmenting State and local supplies of vaccines, antibiotics,
protective gear for first-responders and medical personnel, isolation facilities
for treatment of casualties, shelters against radiation, potassium iodide,
other essential equipment and supplies, and information on self-protection
available for rapid public distribution;
Measures to protect private citizens, including physicians, against
civil liability resulting from efforts to aid others in an emergency (suggested
in Article VIII Section 804);
Permitting the State to waive certain licensure requirements for the
duration of the emergency to permit recruitment of additional personnel
(Article V Section 507(a)); and
Suspending State, federal, or local regulations or ordinances that
interfere with prudent response to an emergency while providing no scientifically
proven significant benefit, subject to ultimate review and rescission or
post-emergency resumption without retroactive penalties, based on scientifically
valid methods.
There are many EPA requirements, for example, that are not based on
good scientific evidence and could be disastrous in a real emergency. At
the time of the World Trade Center fire, the EPA had to acknowledge that
asbestos controls were totally excessive, in order to prevent a public
panic about inhaling the white dust. (Indeed the ban on the use of asbestos
above the 64th floor might have hastened if not caused the collapse of
the buildings-see Jon Dougherty, http://WorldNetDaily.com, November 20,
2001).
The ban on DDT (imposed despite the overwhelming preponderance of scientific
advice and evidence opposed to this action) would severely inhibit the
containment of an outbreak of mosquito or other insect-borne diseases.
The ban on incinerators because of exaggerated concerns about insignificant
releases of dioxins would prevent the safest and most expeditious method
of destroying dangerously contaminated materials.
Conclusions
States can and should improve their ability to respond to disaster,
including bioterrorism. However, having the Governor play doctor and dictator
is not the right response. Citizens should distribute information about
the actual content of the Model Emergency Health Powers Act to opinion
leaders, newspaper editors, columnists, the Chamber of Commerce, business
groups, medical society officials, legislators, and the Bush Administration.
Action Step
You can go to http://www.aapsonline.org/
and click on the Emergency Dictorial Powers act in the left column.
Then click on the December 13th Action Alert which will provide information
on how to respond to your legislators on this issue.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.