It’s a shocking scene that wouldn’t have looked out of place on the streets of Nazi Germany or Maoist China in humanity’s darkest historical period – a protester is shoved into an unmarked car by military thugs and driven away to whatever Godforsaken fate awaits him. And yet this is America in 2009, where the First Amendment is now officially a criminal offense and people who dare exercise it are attacked and abducted by military police in broad daylight.
The video shows an unmarked gold Sedan drive up to a side street near Baum Ave & S Millvale Ave. in Pittsburgh. Men in military fatigues wrestle with the protester as other men in cammo exit the vehicle. The protester is shoved forcefully into the car as the military thugs follow him in and the car speeds away.
Watch the clip below.
Protesters scream “what the fuck is wrong with you” as the Sedan disappears into a cloud of tear gas.
In another You Tube clip, the man with the red bandana seen protesting as the other man is abducted is subsequently arrested by riot cops, presumably merely for voicing his displeasure at the disgraceful scenes he witnessed.
“Some guy just got chased down and thrown in a car for no reason,” states the camerawoman before the shot focuses in on the man with the red bandana, who is being manhandled and arrested by three riot cops.
“Why are you doing that, what did he do?” asks the woman.
Other protesters chant “let him go” as media photographers attempt to find out his name. The clip finishes with a another burst of the sound cannon being used against demonstrators.
Another You Tube clip features the image that is re-posted at the top of this story and asks people to try and identify the military police and riot cops who kidnapped the demonstrator.
These videos require no more explanation, they speak for themselves. Riot cops and military personnel driving around in unmarked cars kidnapping American citizens off the streets for the crime of exercising their First Amendment.
There can be no more debate, America as we knew it is officially dead and buried. The U.S. is more of a police state than Communist China. The only free speech that still exists is on the Internet, in the form of You Tube videos that remind us of what we already knew – the whole country has been hijacked and looted by a criminal gang of globalists who are using their cadre of enforcer thugs to crush any form of opposition to their agenda.
Our only hope is that when the world witnesses scenes like this, it will act as a wake-up call and prevent the planet from sliding once again into tyranny. Only the most deluded and brainwashed individual can now deny the threat that faces us all when police and military show such contempt for the Constitution that they swore an oath to protect and defend.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Mandatory Swine Flu Shots For Firefighters?
Let me start off by saying as a volunteer firefighter, I will resign before I take this injection. Firefighters could be added to the list of those mandated to take the dangerous and untested H1N1 vaccine if Parkersburg Fire Department Chief Eric Chichester gets his way, while health workers in Ontario Canada have been told they will not be forced to take the shot.
Firefighters do not work in hospitals, but because they are trained EMT’s, Chichester believes they should get both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines.
“I plan on getting vaccinated as soon as it’s available,” Chichester said. “Our guys have the choice of getting the regular flu shot, but I’m looking into ways I can make it mandatory for them to receive the H1N1 vaccine,” he told the News and Sentinel.
Capt. Rick Woodyard with the Wood County Sheriff’s Department is quoted in the same article as saying that police will follow the orders of FEMA if there is a widespread H1N1 outbreak.
According to Woodyard, this would involve “guarding injection sites and helping out the medical community.” Whether “helping” the medical community means helping them to carry out forced injections remains to be seen, but it seems there would be little else for law enforcement to do in such a situation other than compel people to follow orders they wouldn’t normally be inclined to.
While health workers across the U.S., notably in Atlanta and New York, are being forced to take the swine flu vaccine as well as the seasonal flu shot or be fired, officials in Ontario Canada have stated that neither health professionals or the general public will be forced to take the vaccine.
Premier Dalton McGuinty told CBC News that the government cannot, “hold anybody down and inject them with a vaccine when they don’t want it.”
Similarly, schools in the U.S. and Canada are making noises indicating that the swine flu shot will not be forced upon children without parental consent. Asotin County Health District Administrator Joe Lillard signaled that kids in Idaho would not be forced to take the vaccine when he told local news channel KLEW-TV 3, “This is not mandatory, it is a voluntary program,” said Lillard. “I strongly encourage parents to get their children immunized, but that’s a personal choice and if they decide they don’t want to do it, it’s their decision.”
However, all this could change if H1N1 returns as a deadlier strain and begins to claim more fatalities, which is exactly what authorities seem to be preparing for as reports of military roadblocks and martial law training drills continue to pour in from all over the country.
Firefighters do not work in hospitals, but because they are trained EMT’s, Chichester believes they should get both the seasonal and H1N1 vaccines.
“I plan on getting vaccinated as soon as it’s available,” Chichester said. “Our guys have the choice of getting the regular flu shot, but I’m looking into ways I can make it mandatory for them to receive the H1N1 vaccine,” he told the News and Sentinel.
Capt. Rick Woodyard with the Wood County Sheriff’s Department is quoted in the same article as saying that police will follow the orders of FEMA if there is a widespread H1N1 outbreak.
According to Woodyard, this would involve “guarding injection sites and helping out the medical community.” Whether “helping” the medical community means helping them to carry out forced injections remains to be seen, but it seems there would be little else for law enforcement to do in such a situation other than compel people to follow orders they wouldn’t normally be inclined to.
While health workers across the U.S., notably in Atlanta and New York, are being forced to take the swine flu vaccine as well as the seasonal flu shot or be fired, officials in Ontario Canada have stated that neither health professionals or the general public will be forced to take the vaccine.
Premier Dalton McGuinty told CBC News that the government cannot, “hold anybody down and inject them with a vaccine when they don’t want it.”
Similarly, schools in the U.S. and Canada are making noises indicating that the swine flu shot will not be forced upon children without parental consent. Asotin County Health District Administrator Joe Lillard signaled that kids in Idaho would not be forced to take the vaccine when he told local news channel KLEW-TV 3, “This is not mandatory, it is a voluntary program,” said Lillard. “I strongly encourage parents to get their children immunized, but that’s a personal choice and if they decide they don’t want to do it, it’s their decision.”
However, all this could change if H1N1 returns as a deadlier strain and begins to claim more fatalities, which is exactly what authorities seem to be preparing for as reports of military roadblocks and martial law training drills continue to pour in from all over the country.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
More on Health Care
The current health care “debate” shows how far gone representative government is in the United States. Members of Congress represent the powerful interest groups that fill their campaign coffers, not the people who vote for them.
The health care bill is not about health care. It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies. The main feature of the health care bill is the “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of millions in contributions over his career from the insurance industry, proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance.
The determination of “our” elected representatives to serve the insurance industry is so compelling that Congress is incapable of recognizing the absurdity of these proposals.
The reason there is a health care crisis in the US is that the cumulative loss of jobs and benefits has swollen the uninsured to approximately 50 million Americans. They cannot afford health insurance any more than employers can afford to provide it.
It is absurd to mandate that people purchase what they cannot afford and to fine them for failing to do so. A person who cannot pay a health insurance premium cannot pay the fine. These proposals are like solving the homeless problem by requiring the homeless to purchase a house.
In his speech Obama said “we’ll provide tax credits” for “those individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange” and he said low-cost coverage will be offered to those with preexisting medical conditions. A tax credit is useless to those without income unless the credit is refundable, and subsidized coverage doesn’t do much for those millions of Americans with no jobs.
Baucus masquerades as a defender of the health impaired with his proposal to require insurers to provide coverage to all comers as if the problem of health care can be reduced to preexisting conditions and cancelled policies. It was left to Rep. Dennis Kucinich to point out that the health care bill ponies up 30 million more customers for the private insurance companies.
The private sector is no longer the answer, because the income levels of the vast majority of Americans are insufficient to bear the cost of health insurance today. To provide some perspective, the monthly premium for a 60-year old female for a group policy (employer-provided) with Blue Cross Blue Shield in Kansas is about $1,200. That comes to $14,400 per year. Only employees in high productivity jobs that can provide both a livable salary and health care can expect to have employer-provided coverage. If a 60-year old female has to buy a non-group policy as an individual, the premium would be even higher. How, for example, is a Wal-Mart shelf stocker or checkout clerk going to be able to pay a private insurance premium?
Even the present public option–Medicare–is very expensive to those covered. Basic Medicare is insufficient coverage. Part B has been added, for which about $100 per month is deducted from the covered person’s Social Security check. If the person is still earning or has other retirement income, an “income-related monthly adjustment” is also deducted as part of the Part B premium. And if the person is still working, his earnings are subject to the 2.9 percent Medicare tax.
Even with Part B, Medicare coverage is still insufficient except for the healthy. For many people, additional coverage from private supplementary policies, such as the ones sold by AARP, is necessary. These premiums can be as much as $277 per month. Deductibles remain and prescriptions are only 50% covered. If the drug prescription policy is chosen, the premium is higher.
This leaves a retired person on Medicare who has no other retirement income of significance paying as much as $4,500 per year in premiums in order to create coverage under Medicare that still leaves half of his prescription medicines out-of-pocket. Considering the cost of some prescription medicines, a Medicare-covered person with Part B and a supplementary policy can still face bankruptcy.
Therefore, everyone should take note that a “public option” can leave people with large out-of-pocket costs. I know a professional who has chosen to continue working beyond retirement age. His Medicare coverage with supplemental coverage, Medicare tax, and income-related monthly adjustment comes to $16,400 per year. Those people who want to deny Medicare to the rich will cost the system a lot of money.
What the US needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with illness and diseases.
A private health care system worked in the days before expensive medical technology, malpractice suits, high costs of bureaucracy associated with third-party payers and heavy investment in combating fraud, and pressure on insurance companies from Wall Street to improve “shareholder returns.”
Despite the rise in premiums, payments to health care providers, such as doctors, appear to be falling along with coverage to policy holders. The system is no longer functional and no longer makes sense. Health care has become an incidental rather than primary purpose of the health care system. Health care plays second fiddle to insurance company profits and salaries to bureaucrats engaged in fraud prevention and discovery. There is no point in denying coverage to one-sixth of the population in the name of saving a nonexistent private free market health care system. The only way to reduce the cost of health care is to take the profit and paperwork out of health care.
Nothing humans design will be perfect. However, Congress is making it clear to the public that the wrong issues are front and center, such as the belief of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and others that illegal aliens and abortions will be covered if government pays the bill.
Debate focuses on subsidiary issues, because Congress no longer writes the bills it passes. The New Deal transferred law-making from the legislative to the executive branch. Executive branch agencies and departments write bills that they want and hand them off to sponsors in the House and Senate. Powerful interest groups took up the same practice. The interest groups that finance political campaigns expect their bills to be sponsored and passed. Thus: a health care reform bill based on forcing people to purchase private health insurance and fining them if they do not.
When bills become mired in ideological conflict, as has happened to the health care bill, something usually passes nevertheless. The president, his PR team, and members of Congress want a health care bill on their resume and to be able to claim that they passed a health care bill, regardless of whether it provides any health care.
The cost of adding public expenditures for health care to a budget drowning in red ink from wars, bank bailouts, and stimulus packages means that the most likely outcome of a health care bill will benefit insurance companies and use mandated private coverage to save public money by curtailing Medicare and Medicaid.
The public’s interest is not considered to be the important determinant. The politicians have to please the insurance companies and reduce health care expenditures in order to save money for another decade or two of war in the Middle East.
The telltale part of Obama’s speech was the applause in response to his pledge that “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” Yet, Obama and his fellow politicians have no hesitation to add trillions of dollars to the deficit in order to fund wars.
The profits of military/security companies are partly recycled into campaign contributions. To cut war spending in order to finance a public health care system would cost politicians campaign contributions from both the insurance industry and the military/security industry. Politicians are not going to allow that to happen.
It was the war in Afghanistan, not health care, that President Obama declared to be a “necessity.”
The health care bill is not about health care. It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies. The main feature of the health care bill is the “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of millions in contributions over his career from the insurance industry, proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance.
The determination of “our” elected representatives to serve the insurance industry is so compelling that Congress is incapable of recognizing the absurdity of these proposals.
The reason there is a health care crisis in the US is that the cumulative loss of jobs and benefits has swollen the uninsured to approximately 50 million Americans. They cannot afford health insurance any more than employers can afford to provide it.
It is absurd to mandate that people purchase what they cannot afford and to fine them for failing to do so. A person who cannot pay a health insurance premium cannot pay the fine. These proposals are like solving the homeless problem by requiring the homeless to purchase a house.
In his speech Obama said “we’ll provide tax credits” for “those individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange” and he said low-cost coverage will be offered to those with preexisting medical conditions. A tax credit is useless to those without income unless the credit is refundable, and subsidized coverage doesn’t do much for those millions of Americans with no jobs.
Baucus masquerades as a defender of the health impaired with his proposal to require insurers to provide coverage to all comers as if the problem of health care can be reduced to preexisting conditions and cancelled policies. It was left to Rep. Dennis Kucinich to point out that the health care bill ponies up 30 million more customers for the private insurance companies.
The private sector is no longer the answer, because the income levels of the vast majority of Americans are insufficient to bear the cost of health insurance today. To provide some perspective, the monthly premium for a 60-year old female for a group policy (employer-provided) with Blue Cross Blue Shield in Kansas is about $1,200. That comes to $14,400 per year. Only employees in high productivity jobs that can provide both a livable salary and health care can expect to have employer-provided coverage. If a 60-year old female has to buy a non-group policy as an individual, the premium would be even higher. How, for example, is a Wal-Mart shelf stocker or checkout clerk going to be able to pay a private insurance premium?
Even the present public option–Medicare–is very expensive to those covered. Basic Medicare is insufficient coverage. Part B has been added, for which about $100 per month is deducted from the covered person’s Social Security check. If the person is still earning or has other retirement income, an “income-related monthly adjustment” is also deducted as part of the Part B premium. And if the person is still working, his earnings are subject to the 2.9 percent Medicare tax.
Even with Part B, Medicare coverage is still insufficient except for the healthy. For many people, additional coverage from private supplementary policies, such as the ones sold by AARP, is necessary. These premiums can be as much as $277 per month. Deductibles remain and prescriptions are only 50% covered. If the drug prescription policy is chosen, the premium is higher.
This leaves a retired person on Medicare who has no other retirement income of significance paying as much as $4,500 per year in premiums in order to create coverage under Medicare that still leaves half of his prescription medicines out-of-pocket. Considering the cost of some prescription medicines, a Medicare-covered person with Part B and a supplementary policy can still face bankruptcy.
Therefore, everyone should take note that a “public option” can leave people with large out-of-pocket costs. I know a professional who has chosen to continue working beyond retirement age. His Medicare coverage with supplemental coverage, Medicare tax, and income-related monthly adjustment comes to $16,400 per year. Those people who want to deny Medicare to the rich will cost the system a lot of money.
What the US needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with illness and diseases.
A private health care system worked in the days before expensive medical technology, malpractice suits, high costs of bureaucracy associated with third-party payers and heavy investment in combating fraud, and pressure on insurance companies from Wall Street to improve “shareholder returns.”
Despite the rise in premiums, payments to health care providers, such as doctors, appear to be falling along with coverage to policy holders. The system is no longer functional and no longer makes sense. Health care has become an incidental rather than primary purpose of the health care system. Health care plays second fiddle to insurance company profits and salaries to bureaucrats engaged in fraud prevention and discovery. There is no point in denying coverage to one-sixth of the population in the name of saving a nonexistent private free market health care system. The only way to reduce the cost of health care is to take the profit and paperwork out of health care.
Nothing humans design will be perfect. However, Congress is making it clear to the public that the wrong issues are front and center, such as the belief of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and others that illegal aliens and abortions will be covered if government pays the bill.
Debate focuses on subsidiary issues, because Congress no longer writes the bills it passes. The New Deal transferred law-making from the legislative to the executive branch. Executive branch agencies and departments write bills that they want and hand them off to sponsors in the House and Senate. Powerful interest groups took up the same practice. The interest groups that finance political campaigns expect their bills to be sponsored and passed. Thus: a health care reform bill based on forcing people to purchase private health insurance and fining them if they do not.
When bills become mired in ideological conflict, as has happened to the health care bill, something usually passes nevertheless. The president, his PR team, and members of Congress want a health care bill on their resume and to be able to claim that they passed a health care bill, regardless of whether it provides any health care.
The cost of adding public expenditures for health care to a budget drowning in red ink from wars, bank bailouts, and stimulus packages means that the most likely outcome of a health care bill will benefit insurance companies and use mandated private coverage to save public money by curtailing Medicare and Medicaid.
The public’s interest is not considered to be the important determinant. The politicians have to please the insurance companies and reduce health care expenditures in order to save money for another decade or two of war in the Middle East.
The telltale part of Obama’s speech was the applause in response to his pledge that “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” Yet, Obama and his fellow politicians have no hesitation to add trillions of dollars to the deficit in order to fund wars.
The profits of military/security companies are partly recycled into campaign contributions. To cut war spending in order to finance a public health care system would cost politicians campaign contributions from both the insurance industry and the military/security industry. Politicians are not going to allow that to happen.
It was the war in Afghanistan, not health care, that President Obama declared to be a “necessity.”
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Healthcare "Reform"
Let me begin by saying that I have been holding off on writing about the healthcare fiasco until I had the time to research it myself. Then I wanted to wait until after President Obama gave his speech to Congress just to see what spin he put on it. His speech ended 2 1/2 hrs. ago and it’s still spinning like a top. What you are about to read is really going to piss off my Democrat friends but the facts speak for themselves. Everything I have written is what the President is proposing.
I am actually quite open to the idea of a single payer healthcare system here in the United States. I have heard proposals that I believe could achieve the goal of healthcare for every American without raising taxes and without the Federal or State governments being involved in the doctor -patient decision-making process. Of course, these proposals have been scrapped and ignored from the very beginning. But, as I say that I am open to the single payer system, it may surprise many that I am opposed to the current healthcare bill generating so much debate around the country. So, let me explain myself.
First, this bill is not single payer. The mainstream media has created a false debate in this country. Liberals and democrats support this bill because they see it as single payer healthcare for all while conservatives and republicans oppose it because they see it as single payer socialized medicine. But as the American people argue over something that does not even exist, they completely miss the things that spell the opposite of healthcare for all as well as the things that are much worse than “socialized medicine.” Essentially, this bill is going to require every American to purchase a private insurance plan with their own money. If you can’t afford this private insurance, then you will be “taxed” or fined by the government (Title IV, P.167).
Secondly, before denying healthcare to the elderly and the handicapped became a national joke, there was a flicker of debate about what the mainstream media mockingly labeled as “death panels.” I regret to inform the readers that these panels do in fact exist both within this bill as well as other legislation. Section 1233 of the healthcare bill is rife with clauses that establish government control over the health care procedures you undergo particularly at the end of life. This section asserts that a government approved list of end of life resources will be established(Section 1233, p. 425) as well as the required “end of life counseling” every five years or if his/her health takes a sudden turn for the worst (Section 1233, P.425). It goes even further to say that a government board will determine what level of treatment you will receive, if any, at the end of your life (Section 1233, P.430). Section 1162 indicates that the government will mandate what it calls “outcome based measures,” which is a polite way of saying rationing (Section 1162, P.335).
The government panel that will make these decisions is actually already in existence. It was created earlier in the year tucked away safely in the stimulus bill. The stimulus legislation created a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research which is modeled on a UK board that oversees the rationing of healthcare procedures in that country and uses a formula to determine who receives care and who doesn’t . With its’ focus on “cost effectiveness” and “outcome based measures,” it is clear that the elderly, the handicapped, and the chronically ill will receive far less care than younger healthier patients as they are seen to benefit less in terms of quality of life and quantity of years. Yet it should be clear to everyone that it is not a question as to whether or not these individuals will benefit from the treatment, it is a question of whether or not they are seen as a benefit to the governmental establishment.
If one is not convinced of the intended rationing of healthcare by simply reading the bill, then he/she should consider what the authors and largest supporters have said in regards to it. Former Senator Tom Daschle, also a former Obama nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary, actually wrote many of these provisions. Daschle is quoted in his book as saying that Americans expect too much from their healthcare system and that Europeans should be commended for being more willing to accepting “hopeless diagnoses” and foregoing “experimental treatments. He also goes on to say that seniors should be more accepting of these hopeless diagnoses and illnesses that come with age instead of treating them.
Ezekiel Emanuel, health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget as well as a sitting member of Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research is quoted as saying that doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (JAMA June 18, 2008,). Indeed, that is generally what patients want from their doctors. In an article written for the Hastings Center Emanuel says, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report Nov.-Dec. 1996, p.13). Emanuel is clearly advocating a eugenics-based rationing system.
The healthcare bill also contains other frightening clauses such as Subpart XII, Section 340L which establishes a “Corps” that will conduct “Home Healthcare visits” as explained in Section 1713 to assess the designated families’ “economic self-sufficiency, employment, school readiness, and educational achievement” and to coach them on how to raise their children(Section 1713,P.768). This bill does in fact contain provisions that would set the wages of doctors (Section 225 and Section 223), possibilities of a draft to a National Health Service Corps (as mentioned also in the stimulus bill; section 1713), creation of a National Medical Device Registry(Section 2521), and potential to mandate even the food we eat (Section 3121).
It is important for the American people to realize that this bill is not single-payer and that it does not provide healthcare for all. It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some. The mainstream media and those who control it have created a false debate among us in an attempt to divide and distract us from the real issues at hand. The American people continue to argue with one another over issues that do not even exist. While we spin around chasing our tails they attack yet one more link in the chain of tyranny and government control.
I am actually quite open to the idea of a single payer healthcare system here in the United States. I have heard proposals that I believe could achieve the goal of healthcare for every American without raising taxes and without the Federal or State governments being involved in the doctor -patient decision-making process. Of course, these proposals have been scrapped and ignored from the very beginning. But, as I say that I am open to the single payer system, it may surprise many that I am opposed to the current healthcare bill generating so much debate around the country. So, let me explain myself.
First, this bill is not single payer. The mainstream media has created a false debate in this country. Liberals and democrats support this bill because they see it as single payer healthcare for all while conservatives and republicans oppose it because they see it as single payer socialized medicine. But as the American people argue over something that does not even exist, they completely miss the things that spell the opposite of healthcare for all as well as the things that are much worse than “socialized medicine.” Essentially, this bill is going to require every American to purchase a private insurance plan with their own money. If you can’t afford this private insurance, then you will be “taxed” or fined by the government (Title IV, P.167).
Secondly, before denying healthcare to the elderly and the handicapped became a national joke, there was a flicker of debate about what the mainstream media mockingly labeled as “death panels.” I regret to inform the readers that these panels do in fact exist both within this bill as well as other legislation. Section 1233 of the healthcare bill is rife with clauses that establish government control over the health care procedures you undergo particularly at the end of life. This section asserts that a government approved list of end of life resources will be established(Section 1233, p. 425) as well as the required “end of life counseling” every five years or if his/her health takes a sudden turn for the worst (Section 1233, P.425). It goes even further to say that a government board will determine what level of treatment you will receive, if any, at the end of your life (Section 1233, P.430). Section 1162 indicates that the government will mandate what it calls “outcome based measures,” which is a polite way of saying rationing (Section 1162, P.335).
The government panel that will make these decisions is actually already in existence. It was created earlier in the year tucked away safely in the stimulus bill. The stimulus legislation created a new bureaucracy called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research which is modeled on a UK board that oversees the rationing of healthcare procedures in that country and uses a formula to determine who receives care and who doesn’t . With its’ focus on “cost effectiveness” and “outcome based measures,” it is clear that the elderly, the handicapped, and the chronically ill will receive far less care than younger healthier patients as they are seen to benefit less in terms of quality of life and quantity of years. Yet it should be clear to everyone that it is not a question as to whether or not these individuals will benefit from the treatment, it is a question of whether or not they are seen as a benefit to the governmental establishment.
If one is not convinced of the intended rationing of healthcare by simply reading the bill, then he/she should consider what the authors and largest supporters have said in regards to it. Former Senator Tom Daschle, also a former Obama nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary, actually wrote many of these provisions. Daschle is quoted in his book as saying that Americans expect too much from their healthcare system and that Europeans should be commended for being more willing to accepting “hopeless diagnoses” and foregoing “experimental treatments. He also goes on to say that seniors should be more accepting of these hopeless diagnoses and illnesses that come with age instead of treating them.
Ezekiel Emanuel, health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget as well as a sitting member of Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research is quoted as saying that doctors take the Hippocratic oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (JAMA June 18, 2008,). Indeed, that is generally what patients want from their doctors. In an article written for the Hastings Center Emanuel says, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report Nov.-Dec. 1996, p.13). Emanuel is clearly advocating a eugenics-based rationing system.
The healthcare bill also contains other frightening clauses such as Subpart XII, Section 340L which establishes a “Corps” that will conduct “Home Healthcare visits” as explained in Section 1713 to assess the designated families’ “economic self-sufficiency, employment, school readiness, and educational achievement” and to coach them on how to raise their children(Section 1713,P.768). This bill does in fact contain provisions that would set the wages of doctors (Section 225 and Section 223), possibilities of a draft to a National Health Service Corps (as mentioned also in the stimulus bill; section 1713), creation of a National Medical Device Registry(Section 2521), and potential to mandate even the food we eat (Section 3121).
It is important for the American people to realize that this bill is not single-payer and that it does not provide healthcare for all. It is a eugenics program that will ration healthcare for most and outright deny it for some. The mainstream media and those who control it have created a false debate among us in an attempt to divide and distract us from the real issues at hand. The American people continue to argue with one another over issues that do not even exist. While we spin around chasing our tails they attack yet one more link in the chain of tyranny and government control.
More Info on Swine Flu Vaccines
A document on the World Health Organization(WHO) website states that it is common procedure to release pandemic viruses into the population in order to get a jump ahead of the real pandemic, so as to fast track the vaccine for when it is needed.
In Europe, some manufacturers have conducted advance studies using a so-called “mock-up” vaccine. Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus.
According to the website, “Such advance studies can greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Sources: World Health Organization
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
On June 11 the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6. Phase 6 is the highest level alert, and reflects the speed with which a virus is spreading — not its severity.
This classification also allows for a vaccine to qualify for a “fast-track” procedure for licensing and approval, and this process is now ongoing for the swine flu vaccine.
What you may not know, however, is that WHO, together with health officials, regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers, have been working since 2007 – long before this new “threat” of swine flu emerged – to “explore a broad range of issues surrounding the regulatory approval of pandemic vaccines.”
According to the WHO website:
“Ways were sought to shorten the time between the emergence of a pandemic virus and the availability of safe and effective vaccines.”
One such method used in Europe is to conduct advance studies using a “mock-up” vaccine that contains an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations.
When testing these mock-up vaccines, it is very possible to release the novel influenza virus into the population, as its purpose is to “mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus” and “greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Government officials have other tricks up their sleeves to ensure these new, barely tested vaccines easily make it to market as well, such as:
Labeling the vaccine a “strain change” rather than an entirely “new” vaccine. This method states the new vaccine has built on technology used to produce vaccines for seasonal influenza, and the change for the pandemic vaccine is similar to a strain change used to produce a new seasonal vaccine each flu season.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are required to submit fewer data if they already have a licensed flu vaccine and will use the same manufacturing process for the pandemic vaccine.
Using a “rolling review procedure.” This allows manufacturers to submit sets of data for regulatory review “as they become available.” In other words, they’re free to distribute the vaccine and then submit the safety data later on.
Would You Want a Fast-Tracked Vaccine Injected Into Your Body?
By very definition, fast-tracked vaccines are those that have received very little safety testing prior to being used. So any time you agree to get one, you are essentially a guinea pig.
Vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated:
“Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available.”
And WHO likewise says:
“Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun.”
Why would anyone who knows the facts sign up for a vaccine that really needs further safety studies … but won’t receive them until AFTER it’s already been given out? By then it will be too late.
So please realize that if you or your child receive a swine flu vaccine, you will be acting as a TEST subject.
Remember this vaccine will not be made using the methods of the past. In order to speed up the cultivation of the virus and the manufacturing process, they’re using human liver cells instead of chicken eggs. Whether this new procedure is better or worse than the old method, I can’t say … but it’s never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any human testing.
So, it’s a giant game of Russian Roulette that you simply want to avoid. Nearly all of the vaccines created will also include thimerosal (mercury), and the toxic adjuvant squalene, both of which have been clearly shown to carry significant health risks.
You should know, too, that vaccine makers and federal officials have been rendered immune from lawsuits. Should anything go wrong with this current vaccine they will not have to pay a single cent to anyone!
Who Stands to Benefit From the Swine Flu Pandemic (and Future Pandemics)?
This is the question you need to ask yourself when you hear the media dishing out the latest statistics about the swine flu pandemic.
In the last few days alone, I’ve seen major news outlets warning that come flu season, the swine flu could kill 90,000 Americans and hospitalize 2 million. This sounds a lot like the fear-mongering that went on during the Bird Flu pandemic (that never materialized) back in 2005.
Back then scientists and governments were congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines. Now I’m having déjà vu.
In response to this newest swine flu pandemic, what did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently suggest?
Swine flu shots for all! Of course, what else would you expect?
As the Washington Post reported, CDC said: “As soon as a vaccine is available, try to get it for everyone in your family.”
Well, you might be tempted to do just that if you believe the sensational number of swine flu deaths they’re predicting. But, really, these numbers are not based on facts.
WHO continues to define the severity of the H1N1 virus to be moderate, generally defined as an illness requiring neither hospitalization nor even medical care. Most cases are having MILD symptoms that clear up on their own.
Further, no one really knows for sure just how many cases of swine flu there are, because some countries are no longer confirming them by lab.
In the UK, for example, they now appear to be collecting swine flu data online and via the phone, based on nothing but self-assessment. So did they really contract the swine flu? Or did the vast majority of them simply have a case of the sniffles or a seasonal flu bug? Without laboratory confirmation, no one will ever know, but they sure are using those numbers to scare you!
Going back to my original question though, you must ask yourself who stands to benefit from all of this paranoia and hysteria. Of course you know the answer to this one.
Big Pharma … which stands to gain up to $49 billion a year on the swine flu vaccine alone plus an infinite amount on top of that for future pandemic vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers would love for every man, woman, and child to heed the CDC’s advice to get vaccinated. But now you know better. The swine flu is typically a mild illness.
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives.
The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new “pandemic” appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this blog and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
In Europe, some manufacturers have conducted advance studies using a so-called “mock-up” vaccine. Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus.
According to the website, “Such advance studies can greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Sources: World Health Organization
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
On June 11 the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6. Phase 6 is the highest level alert, and reflects the speed with which a virus is spreading — not its severity.
This classification also allows for a vaccine to qualify for a “fast-track” procedure for licensing and approval, and this process is now ongoing for the swine flu vaccine.
What you may not know, however, is that WHO, together with health officials, regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers, have been working since 2007 – long before this new “threat” of swine flu emerged – to “explore a broad range of issues surrounding the regulatory approval of pandemic vaccines.”
According to the WHO website:
“Ways were sought to shorten the time between the emergence of a pandemic virus and the availability of safe and effective vaccines.”
One such method used in Europe is to conduct advance studies using a “mock-up” vaccine that contains an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations.
When testing these mock-up vaccines, it is very possible to release the novel influenza virus into the population, as its purpose is to “mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus” and “greatly expedite regulatory approval.”
Government officials have other tricks up their sleeves to ensure these new, barely tested vaccines easily make it to market as well, such as:
Labeling the vaccine a “strain change” rather than an entirely “new” vaccine. This method states the new vaccine has built on technology used to produce vaccines for seasonal influenza, and the change for the pandemic vaccine is similar to a strain change used to produce a new seasonal vaccine each flu season.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are required to submit fewer data if they already have a licensed flu vaccine and will use the same manufacturing process for the pandemic vaccine.
Using a “rolling review procedure.” This allows manufacturers to submit sets of data for regulatory review “as they become available.” In other words, they’re free to distribute the vaccine and then submit the safety data later on.
Would You Want a Fast-Tracked Vaccine Injected Into Your Body?
By very definition, fast-tracked vaccines are those that have received very little safety testing prior to being used. So any time you agree to get one, you are essentially a guinea pig.
Vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated:
“Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available.”
And WHO likewise says:
“Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun.”
Why would anyone who knows the facts sign up for a vaccine that really needs further safety studies … but won’t receive them until AFTER it’s already been given out? By then it will be too late.
So please realize that if you or your child receive a swine flu vaccine, you will be acting as a TEST subject.
Remember this vaccine will not be made using the methods of the past. In order to speed up the cultivation of the virus and the manufacturing process, they’re using human liver cells instead of chicken eggs. Whether this new procedure is better or worse than the old method, I can’t say … but it’s never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any human testing.
So, it’s a giant game of Russian Roulette that you simply want to avoid. Nearly all of the vaccines created will also include thimerosal (mercury), and the toxic adjuvant squalene, both of which have been clearly shown to carry significant health risks.
You should know, too, that vaccine makers and federal officials have been rendered immune from lawsuits. Should anything go wrong with this current vaccine they will not have to pay a single cent to anyone!
Who Stands to Benefit From the Swine Flu Pandemic (and Future Pandemics)?
This is the question you need to ask yourself when you hear the media dishing out the latest statistics about the swine flu pandemic.
In the last few days alone, I’ve seen major news outlets warning that come flu season, the swine flu could kill 90,000 Americans and hospitalize 2 million. This sounds a lot like the fear-mongering that went on during the Bird Flu pandemic (that never materialized) back in 2005.
Back then scientists and governments were congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines. Now I’m having déjà vu.
In response to this newest swine flu pandemic, what did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently suggest?
Swine flu shots for all! Of course, what else would you expect?
As the Washington Post reported, CDC said: “As soon as a vaccine is available, try to get it for everyone in your family.”
Well, you might be tempted to do just that if you believe the sensational number of swine flu deaths they’re predicting. But, really, these numbers are not based on facts.
WHO continues to define the severity of the H1N1 virus to be moderate, generally defined as an illness requiring neither hospitalization nor even medical care. Most cases are having MILD symptoms that clear up on their own.
Further, no one really knows for sure just how many cases of swine flu there are, because some countries are no longer confirming them by lab.
In the UK, for example, they now appear to be collecting swine flu data online and via the phone, based on nothing but self-assessment. So did they really contract the swine flu? Or did the vast majority of them simply have a case of the sniffles or a seasonal flu bug? Without laboratory confirmation, no one will ever know, but they sure are using those numbers to scare you!
Going back to my original question though, you must ask yourself who stands to benefit from all of this paranoia and hysteria. Of course you know the answer to this one.
Big Pharma … which stands to gain up to $49 billion a year on the swine flu vaccine alone plus an infinite amount on top of that for future pandemic vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers would love for every man, woman, and child to heed the CDC’s advice to get vaccinated. But now you know better. The swine flu is typically a mild illness.
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives.
The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new “pandemic” appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this blog and ask yourself if it’s really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Pathways to "Prosperity" in the Americas...Yeah Right
The Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, which some have dubbed PPA, was first launched by the Bush administration in September of 2008 in an effort to further deepen existing economic partnerships in the region. Many speculated that it was a last ditch effort by Bush to resurrect a revised version of the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The Obama administration has continued with the PPA and is set to re-launch and expand the initiative which would lead to greater integration in the Americas. Some aspects of the PPA are similar to the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership and could spread SPP objectives to other parts of the Western Hemisphere.
At the Pathways to Prosperity Ministerial held in El Salvador on May 31, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged support for the PPA. She stated, “President Obama has emphasized that it’s not important whether ideas come from one party or another, so long as they move us in the right direction. This meeting builds on the work of the previous U.S. administration, but the President and I are also committed to re-launching Pathways to Prosperity, and expanding its work to spread the benefits of economic recovery, growth, and open markets to the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens of our region.” It appears as if the Obama administration wishes to put their own stamp of approval on the PPA and further expand it.
The PPA now includes 14 partner countries Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the U.S. and Uruguay. Besides NAFTA and CAFTA, there are other Free Trade Agreements amongst partner nations that are already active, with some being negotiated or pending legislative approval. At the meeting, Clinton also stressed that, “Pathways should be open to working with new partners including other nations and sub-regional banks that share our commitment to open markets and greater social inclusion. I want to note the presence of the observer countries – Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago – that are here today. Going forward, I hope you and other countries from our hemisphere will join us in this initiative as full members.” If you combine all the bilateral and regional trade deals in the Americas, it could facilitate a larger multilateral agreement. Expanding the PPA could be a backdoor to achieving something similar to the FTAA.
A Joint Statement By North American Leaders from the recent Summit held in Guadalajara, Mexico on Aug 9-10 stated, “Our three governments recognize that we cannot limit our efforts to North America alone, and we have agreed to instruct our respective Ministers to strive for greater cooperation and coordination as we work to promote security and institutional development with our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean.” Could they be referring to the PPA? The Leaders also promised to hold public consultations on the North American agenda as it appears that they have learned from mistakes made with the SPP. At least in rhetoric, the PPA attempts to balance economic progress and trade initiatives with social justice. They can talk all they want about fair trade, social development priorities and how they are going to listen to our concerns. Until something is done with the flawed NAFTA model which has benefited multinational corporations at the expense of labor, health, safety and environmental rights, it will not mean a damn thing.
An article from April of this year entitled Obama’s Agenda for Change and the 2009 Summit of the Americas called on the new administration to announce the cancellation of the SPP, along with its hemispheric extension, the PPA. It pointed out that, “The PPA bears many of the hallmarks of the SPP.” It goes on to say, “The PPA, like the SPP, is little more than an attempt to justify economic deregulation and to promote an escalation of militarism in the region.” The SPP website now says that it will serve as an archive for documents and will not be updated and announced that, “Going forward, we want to build on the accomplishments achieved by the SPP and further improve our cooperation.” Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians reported that as a venue for North American integration, the SPP is dead.
Trade, social development and foreign aid, along with other endeavors, have been used to further promote U.S. interest around the globe. In some cases, this has resulted in shared security goals and closer military cooperation which has led to U.S. involvement in the region. In the aftermath of the SPP’s demise, beware of other initiatives that could take its place and advance economic, political, social, security and military integration, not only in North America, but the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Why Swine Flu Vaccines Don't Add Up
Here's a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people(assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that's within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.
But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?
The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot, and cough into your elbow?"(Seriously, I'm not making this up.)
The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those 10 things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D, or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."
They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.
Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the United States. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? That would be 250 million people.
Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.
But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over $10 billion in revenues for drug companies.
Now let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2,000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season(and that's being very generous to the vaccine). So here's the question: How many people have been vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality? (Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That's because the answer isn't exactly what most people want to hear...) This question is easy to answer,actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective(that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that's the normal death rate for this particular virus(these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters, and the White House, by the way).
But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I already mentioned, seasonal flu vaccines might-at a stretch- be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.
That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push doesn't it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers about $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.
It all begs the question: Is it REALLY worth it?
Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn't anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost/benefit analysis as I'm doing here?
Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would've otherwise occurred, that still means you'd have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of 20 people.
I'm going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 20 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being seen right now.
Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It's based on politics. And the politics demand that "they DO something!" That's what the public wants: Do something! It doesn't matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing...they just want to see some action.
It's the same story with breast cancer screenings(almost completely useless), prostate cancer screenings (now proven to be far more harmful than helpful), and of course ADHD screening tests (which are only designed to trick parents into drugging their kids). Much of western medicine, it turns out, is complete BS. We would all be better off without the screenings and vaccinations altogether.
The point of all this is simple: TO SELL VACCINES. It's the one math problem that everybody understands. To make money, you have to sell a product, and there's no better way to sell vaccines to 150 million people than to scare them into begging for injections. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery. Most people who play the lottery are the same ones who will be getting vaccine shots. It's like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of "winning" are far worse than your odds of winning something in a lotto.
Let's see: You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.
I also noticed an announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to all Americans injected with this EXPERIMENTAL vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering FREE swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn't have a job!
That's right: Just show up, prove you're unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. What's next? Retailers handing out free Soylent Green?
But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?
The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot, and cough into your elbow?"(Seriously, I'm not making this up.)
The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those 10 things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D, or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."
They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.
Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the United States. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? That would be 250 million people.
Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.
But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over $10 billion in revenues for drug companies.
Now let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2,000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season(and that's being very generous to the vaccine). So here's the question: How many people have been vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality? (Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That's because the answer isn't exactly what most people want to hear...) This question is easy to answer,actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective(that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that's the normal death rate for this particular virus(these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters, and the White House, by the way).
But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I already mentioned, seasonal flu vaccines might-at a stretch- be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.
That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push doesn't it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers about $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.
It all begs the question: Is it REALLY worth it?
Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn't anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost/benefit analysis as I'm doing here?
Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would've otherwise occurred, that still means you'd have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of 20 people.
I'm going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 20 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being seen right now.
Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It's based on politics. And the politics demand that "they DO something!" That's what the public wants: Do something! It doesn't matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing...they just want to see some action.
It's the same story with breast cancer screenings(almost completely useless), prostate cancer screenings (now proven to be far more harmful than helpful), and of course ADHD screening tests (which are only designed to trick parents into drugging their kids). Much of western medicine, it turns out, is complete BS. We would all be better off without the screenings and vaccinations altogether.
The point of all this is simple: TO SELL VACCINES. It's the one math problem that everybody understands. To make money, you have to sell a product, and there's no better way to sell vaccines to 150 million people than to scare them into begging for injections. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery. Most people who play the lottery are the same ones who will be getting vaccine shots. It's like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of "winning" are far worse than your odds of winning something in a lotto.
Let's see: You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.
I also noticed an announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to all Americans injected with this EXPERIMENTAL vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering FREE swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn't have a job!
That's right: Just show up, prove you're unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. What's next? Retailers handing out free Soylent Green?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
