• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

H1N1 Quarantine or $1000 a day fine for refusing the vaccine

Will you be taking the H1N1 vaccine?

  • Yes. My family and I can't afford to get sick.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Maybe, depends on the testing done.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Molon Labe!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
B

Butlerite

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
119
Location
, ,
imported post

This one really has got me wondering...:what:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_oD55WvDmM

No, it has not passed the full State legislature. I am sure that other state governments are looking at this one.

Noticed on FOX on either 8/30 or 8/31 that they were talking about being able to enter your home without a warrant.


Thoughts??
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

Since I don't live in Massachusetts, I won't vote. That kind of legislation is ridiculous. If it comes to WA I'll be protesting constantly.
 
A

AyeYo

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
12
Location
, ,
imported post

Where's the option for: "the options are extremely leading, biased, and have almost nothing to do with the questoin."



Better options:



"yes"

"no"

"undecided"
 
F

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Rush Limbaugh says, and I agree, that most people's historical perspective begins on the day that they were born.

What people need to realize is that this sort of thing is NOT new. Up until about 60 years ago, epidemics of various kinds and quarantines--by force if necessary--were very common.

Indications show that this swine flu will probably not be too terribly bad, although that could change.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Everybody who thinks that people are overreacting to the flushould read The Great Influenza, by John Barry. It's the definitive study of the 1918 flu. It's one of the best illustrations in existence of the saying, "Desperate circumstances require desperate measures." There was a town here in Colorado that posted armed guards to keep out strangers. Many towns and cities prohibited ALL public meetings, including funerals and church services!
 
We-the-People

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

This isn't 1918, we have a much more clean standard of living. Could an influenze epidemic cause problems? Sure. Unfortunately, our government isn't as responsible as they were in 1918.

The swine flu vaccine that is going to be distributed was tested but without the "solvent" that it is adminstered with in the distributed vaccine. The name of the solvent is squalene. Indications are that the vaccine that is being administered with the squalene in it is causing a high number of problems. Immune system reactions, "Guillaine-barre" is the name of just ONE of the reactions and is an autoimmune disorder. Guess what else is an autoimmune disorder? AIDS, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.

That's just ONE of the major reactions.

It is also a suspect in Gulf War Syndrome as the squalene was also used in the vaccinations given to those vets.

The government, like it or not, has a dollar value assigned to the value of human life depending upon age. They compare the "cost" of doing something and make a financial decision. "Acceptable losses" is not just a movie line.

No forced vaccinations here. Unless WE determine (my wife and I) that the risk of taking it is less than the risk of not taking it we will NOT be given the shot. And they will NOT come in our home.
 
david.ross

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
imported post

Also note, the video linked by OP is from a CRACKPOT INFOWARS member.

Here is the bill in question
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02028.htm

I've never had a flu shot, and I will never have one. I should also add I've rarely caught the seasonal flu, and it's rare for me to get sick.

To be honest, sounds like they want a lawsuit. Some people may not want to take the vaccine due to vaccinosis, which is a valid claim. There is also a claim of religion, which they must follow.

I'm not trying to sound terribly mean, but the swine flu is more deadly for those who are overweight.

I should note how HEAVY Sen. Richard Moore appears to be. Looks like he wants to save his own ass since he spent years packing on the weight. Happy meals anyone?

http://www.google.com/search?q=swine+flu+targets+fat+people


(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual.
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.

Sounds not only unreasonable but absolutely unlawful. There is plenty of evidence regarding flu vaccines where the vaccine itself will make a person sick. If people want to prevent a pandemic, then they need to start being more active by not getting to be 280lbs and the flu would pass just as it does every year.

Found an article which wasn't from a crack pot source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165802466994331.html
 
hopnpop

hopnpop

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
630
Location
Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
imported post

We-the-People wrote:
This isn't 1918, we have a much more clean standard of living. Could an influenze epidemic cause problems? Sure. Unfortunately, our government isn't as responsible as they were in 1918.

The swine flu vaccine that is going to be distributed was tested but without the "solvent" that it is adminstered with in the distributed vaccine. The name of the solvent is squalene. Indications are that the vaccine that is being administered with the squalene in it is causing a high number of problems. Immune system reactions, "Guillaine-barre" is the name of just ONE of the reactions and is an autoimmune disorder. Guess what else is an autoimmune disorder? AIDS, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.

That's just ONE of the major reactions.

It is also a suspect in Gulf War Syndrome as the squalene was also used in the vaccinations given to those vets.

The government, like it or not, has a dollar value assigned to the value of human life depending upon age. They compare the "cost" of doing something and make a financial decision. "Acceptable losses" is not just a movie line.

No forced vaccinations here. Unless WE determine (my wife and I) that the risk of taking it is less than the risk of not taking it we will NOT be given the shot. And they will NOT come in our home.
Click to expand...
Where's the *applause* button? Two thumbs up to a very well-worded post. You're not alone in your stance, that's for sure. I still refuse to let my kids get regular flu shot, as they still contain mercury. Swine flu shots? Not a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top