Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of Health Care Decisions

[Guest guest]

-

" Elaine121 " <Elaine121

<Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:25 PM

Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of

Health Care Decisions

 

 

 

> -

> Ingri Cassel

> Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:44 PM

> Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of Health Care

Decisions

 

 

> The CDC is the same group of folks who lied to the American people

> about condoms supposedly having the ability to prevent the spread of

> sexually transmitted diseases. They said condoms prevented most STDs

> when the evidence showed the exact opposite. Because of them, we have

> an epidemic of STDs in America. This is the same group that failed to

> promote legitimate public health initiatives that could have helped

> contain the spread of other diseases such as AIDS.

 

While much of the fears about federally mandated vaccinations are

ones which I can readily agree with, the post I quoted from briefly above

contains statements for which I would very much like references. I cannot

tell if the information alluded to above is something I very much need to

know, or if it is paranoia masquerading as information.

 

Please do not take me wrong. I very much distrust the CDC & I feel

the AIDS " Research " claiming HIV is the causitive agent of AIDS is totally

unsubstantiated. It could be true, but right now it is pure conjecture

which has been used to brainwash the media & the public into beleiving its

veracity.

 

I have found many people saying things pertaining to medicine &

health with no back-up. Having been led down the garden path one too many

times, I have become somewhat leery about accepting bold statements like the

above quote without seeing some backup. Got any website references?

 

Alobar

[Guest guest]

Wow- thanks for passing that along!

JoAnn

 

" Elaine121 " <Elaine121@e...> wrote:

>

> -

> Ingri Cassel

> Sunday, December 09, 2001 6:44 PM

> Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of Health

Care Decisions

>

>

> Hillary's Revenge

> Experts Agree: " The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act " is a

Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of Health Care

Decisions

>

>

> · State public health authorities are being given

control over firearms, alcohol and private property; the plan is an

excuse for the federal government and the states to seize control of

the entire health care system.

>

> · Lawrence Gostin, the author of the plan, is an

advocate of using force in the name of " protecting " the community; he

served on the federal task force to implement Hillary Clinton's

health care scheme.

>

> · A mandatory smallpox vaccination program using a live

virus could produce 70,000 severe reactions and injuries, several

hundred deaths, and spread the disease to countless others.

>

> · A top-down federal command-and-control scheme ignores

the necessary involvement on a practical level of ordinary citizens.

>

> · States already have the power to control outbreaks of

contagious diseases.

>

>

>

>

>

> There is a real danger that, in the war on terrorism, law-abiding

American citizens could be forced to sacrifice their rights. That is

clearly the case with the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

scheme for the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. In the name

of protecting us from bioterrorism, the CDC has endorsed a plan

written by Lawrence Gostin, a former member of Hillary Clinton's

health care task force with very close ties to the World Health

Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. Clinton holdover and CDC

director Dr. Jeffrey Koplan unveiled the plan for public health

authorities to take over hospitals, seize drug supplies, quarantine

people, draft doctors, force patients to be vaccinated, prevent

people from leaving contaminated areas, and destroy contaminated

property without the owners' consent.

>

> The CDC is the same group of folks who lied to the American people

about condoms supposedly having the ability to prevent the spread of

sexually transmitted diseases. They said condoms prevented most STDs

when the evidence showed the exact opposite. Because of them, we have

an epidemic of STDs in America. This is the same group that failed to

promote legitimate public health initiatives that could have helped

contain the spread of other diseases such as AIDS.

>

> Now they want to protect us from bioterrorism?

>

> So what will they do if we try to leave a contaminated area? Shoot

us?

>

> They say the big danger today is smallpox. We don't have enough

vaccine and when we do, they may try to force us all to get a

smallpox shot. That's potentially dangerous because the current

vaccine is a live virus. For many, the vaccine may be as dangerous as

the disease.

>

> Why don't we have enough vaccine? And why don't we have a safe

vaccine? Federal incompetence. The public health establishment was

told by the CIA back in 1995 that Osama bin Laden possibly had the

virus. The feds failed to act.

>

> Actually, the feds have known with certainty since the early 1990s

that the smallpox virus was in the hands of terrorists and terrorist

states. And here is where the story gets interesting. Only the

Soviets/Russians and the United States are supposed to have the

virus, because it was officially eradicated in 1980. That's why

smallpox vaccinations were discontinued. American scientist Donald A.

Henderson, who led the U.N. World Health Organization effort to

eradicate smallpox, says he feels " betrayed totally " by the Soviets,

who, after it was officially eradicated, proceeded to make it into a

weapon. The United Nations gets part of the blame because the WHO was

supposed to safeguard the virus.

>

> Not only did federal officials fail to act, Henderson agitated for

the U.S. to destroy our stockpile of the virus. That would have put

us at an even more fatal disadvantage. President Bush, to his great

credit, has said no to that.

>

> Regarding the vaccine, what if the terrorists have vaccine-

resistant smallpox? Ken Alibek, who helped run the Soviet bioweapons

program, says too much hope is being placed in vaccines which don't

exist for every possible biological agent or strain of a virus. He

points out that the Soviets also developed other diseases as weapons.

What about those? Alibek says more effort should be placed on

treating diseases when they occur.

>

> It's also worthwhile to take a look at what was being said before

the current hysteria. The book, Living Terrors, co-authored by Dr.

Michael Osterholm, an acknowledged expert in the field, was published

last year. He says the likelihood of being infected by a bioterrorist

attack is comparable to being struck by lightening. He warned about

the anthrax vaccine and the smallpox vaccine, which " has side effects

that would be unacceptable to many people today. " Osterholm worried

about " disease hustlers " who would try to force these vaccines on

everybody, when only a limited number of volunteer public health

workers preparing for an outbreak of a disease would need to get

vaccinated.

>

> The program Endangered Liberties has aired a discussion

of the proposed legislation. Hosted by Cliff Kincaid, president of

America's Survival, Inc., it featured Sandy Liddy Bourne of the

American Legislative Exchange Council (www.alec.org) and Barbara Loe

Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (www.909shot.com).

What follows is an edited transcript of the show:

>

>

>

>

>

> Cliff Kincaid, President, America's Survival:

>

>

>

> Since September11th there's almost no terrorist act considered

unthinkable. The most talked about threat is bio-terrorism. And

officials are scrambling to come up with some kind of plan in the

event of such an attack. Unfortunately some of what's being planned

is not good. In fact it is frightening. The Department of Health and

Human services is encouraging state governments to pass new laws that

would, according to the Washington Post, permit large scale

quarantine, forcible seizure of hospitals and other business,

mandatory vaccination or treatment and destruction of property

without the owner's consent.

>

> Joining me to discuss this topic is Sandy Liddy Bourne from ALEC,

the American Legislative Exchange Council. Here is the controversial

piece of proposed legislation -- model legislation for the states --

endorsed by some big names -- the CDC, the Centers for Disease

Control, National Governors Association, National Conference of State

Legislatures, and so on. This may sound harsh but they have set up a

plan for a medical dictatorship for this country.

>

>

>

> Sandy Liddy Bourne, American Legislative Exchange Council:

>

>

>

> Unfortunately that is true. We need to step back and provide

historical perspective. First of all, they're looking at this as a

public health model and what to do in a time of war. That's where I

have a strong difference of opinion with what they are trying to do.

These organizations, the National Governors Association, National

Conference of State Legislatures, historically are to the left. And

so they've had a lot of this language in the pipeline ready to go.

Just waiting for an emergency to quickly try to push this through.

>

> Let's go back in history. Germ warfare is not a stranger to this

country. We have been looking at it through the centuries of man

when people were flinging dead bodies over walls to spread the

plague. They used smallpox to contaminate our Native American

population. So this is not new to us.

>

> In fact, today, we've debunked the anthrax scare. The envelopes

that were sent were clearly, from what I can read in the paper,

weaponized spores that were designed to infect hundreds of thousands

of people. It failed. It failed in a big way. Furthermore, we found

out that there was one medication that could cure this or that could

stop it, and that was Cipro. So immediately we began giving those

people who were potentially contaminated the Cipro. Within 36 hours

after testing the spores we found out that three other antibiotics

could be used.

>

> When you go back through our history of warfare, this country has

relied upon the free market to provide us with solutions, and in fact

that has been our saving grace in every single occurrence. Let's go

back to World War lI. Remember the pictures of Rosie the Riveter?

Many people will tell you those were the women, the tough women. In

reality, that was a picture of our manufacturers putting out as

quickly as they could our best technology to our soldiers who were

fighting. We need to do the same thing right now. Relax the

regulations on our biotechnological companies on all of our free

market and let them, in modern day terms, rock and roll. And develop

the medicines we need to fight bio-terrorism, even smallpox.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Here we're dealing with something that's deadly and very

contagious. They say one case is too many and can lead to dozens,

hundreds, hundreds of thousands of cases. It's fine to talk about

biotech and the drug companies coming through some time. But what are

we going to do in the meantime if a smallpox attack occurs?

>

>

>

> Bourne: When we last were studying smallpox we had no cure against

viruses. We now have 21 medicines on the shelves. With HIV we also

began studying viruses. There are probably now 4 or 5 of those 21

drugs used against viruses that have the potential to go after

smallpox. Let's look into those medications; see what we can find

now that we have a need. There wasn't a need to study smallpox

because we eradicated it, we thought, from the face of the earth.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: But if a case does break out, if we're under attack from

smallpox as a weapon, what's wrong with giving public health

officials at the federal or state level the power to quarantine

people, to isolate them and perhaps even force them to be vaccinated?

>

>

>

> Bourne: The problem that we have from the state perspective is that

all of the vaccinations are being held at CDC, Centers for Disease

Control. So, by the time you find that person that has been

contaminated there are not medications at the state level, there are

no regional stockpiles. Yet that's the first thing we need to do.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: So at least isolate and quarantine them.

>

>

>

> Bourne: You can and that's already there. We already have those

powers; we don't need new laws.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: So the states already have that power.

>

>

>

> Bourne: Yes. We don't need new laws to do this. If they see a

contagious disease, they can quickly isolate them in the hospital and

find out what they had. Then they go to the next group of people and

they can vaccinate that circle of people. That's an appropriate

response. Mass vaccination is not necessarily the best response.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: If the states already have this power, what's behind this

new proposal?

>

>

>

> Bourne: Rationing health care. Where did you hear that before?

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Rationing health care. You mean it's designed to go into

other health areas?

>

>

>

> Bourne: This is under the auspices of bio-terrorism. You look at

this language and you see that the public health director of the

states has the authority to control property, and control material

and control people. That is a perspective that is unprecedented in

the history of this country -- to give the public health director, a

non-elected official, that kind of authority.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Barbara, let's get into the area of smallpox and mandatory

vaccines, because this is seems to be where the focus is now -- that

we're in danger of a smallpox attack and a smallpox vaccine is the

only hope. Do you agree?

>

>

>

> Barbara Loe Fisher, president, National Vaccine Information

Center:

>

>

>

> The National Vaccine Information Center has been monitoring vaccine

research and policy making for the past 20 years and what we've been

really concerned about is the increasing militarization of the public

health infrastructure. I think this model state legislation is

further proof that that has been the goal all along. And with regard

to smallpox vaccine I think we have to remember it is the most

reactive vaccine that has ever been used in the human population. It

caused more injuries and deaths than any other vaccine. It was a

well-kept secret, but that basically is the truth. When you look at

this vaccine you see it is a live vaccinia virus vaccine, which is

really a genetic hybrid of the variola virus that causes smallpox and

the cowpox virus that causes infection in cows. We don't have it in

our population anymore. Because we don't vaccinate for smallpox we

would have to reintroduce that live vaccine. It has the ability to

infect you with the vaccinia virus and you can infect other people

with the virus and it cause severe complications. One in four

thousand people will have a severe enough complication that they will

require vaccinia immune globulin. The existing supplies that we have

of this smallpox vaccine have deteriorated and are very compromised,

as is the vaccinia immune globulin.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: We're told that mass vaccination programs for smallpox

eradicated the disease.

>

>

>

> Fisher: The vaccinia virus put pressure on the variola virus and

that is how they were able to eradicate the disease. But the problem

is we don't have vaccinia virus in our population anymore. We don't

use the vaccine. To reintroduce that, particularly for people under

thirty who have never had experience with it, what we're going to

have, we're going to have that virus circulating again, and again you

can give the virus to other people once you've been vaccinated and

cause their death or injury particularly the immune compromised.

You're going to have some people who are biologically or genetically

more vulnerable to reacting to this vaccine, or to die or be injured

by the disease. So what you have is this -- a dangerous disease and

a dangerous vaccine.

>

>

>

> Now the question becomes in a state of emergency, do we want to put

the power -- your right to decide what you're willing to die for

basically -- in the hands of an elite few who are going to make that

decision for you? Your choice between a dangerous disease or a

dangerous vaccine. I think we have to look at what is really

occurring here. Do we have the right as citizens in a free society

to make life and death decisions for ourselves and our children. I

think the answer has got to be yes. It's the most important decision

you'll ever make. What are you willing to die for?

>

>

>

> Kincaid: The state officials are looking at the well being of

society as a whole and they might figure we'll lose less people by

using the vaccine then letting the disease itself grow.

>

>

>

> Fisher: Those who want to vaccinate have every right to vaccinate.

Then they are protected. Right? My family is biologically

genetically vulnerable to reacting to vaccines. The choice that we

would have in the case of a true exposure to smallpox virus is a

horrible one because we could die very easily from the vaccine, as we

could die from the disease. That decision belongs to me. Not to the

state.

>

>

>

> Bourne: To highlight her point, one of the first criticisms out of

the box on this whole thing is that the CDC are talking about

inoculating themselves, but nobody else. And already the states are

complaining that they're not getting access to the vaccinations to

help the population. So the elitism is already present and working,

now in the CDC. That's a fundamental problem with this. They're

talking about federal control, and command and control. But our

enemy right now is a network of individuals and a network of

countries. It's not Russia; it's not Nazi Germany. These folks are

going to use multiple targets at multiple times. So therefore we

don't want a command and control response coming down from the

federal government. We want to have the states and the individuals

and the localities prepared to respond if they need to. It will be

the citizens that will respond first in an emergency. Just as we saw

on September 11th, it was the firemen, the policemen and individual

citizens that responded to the attacks on the Pentagon and New York.

In New York, one of the lessons learned was that the Department of

Health and Human Services was able to get 50 tons of medical supplies

to New York, but they were not able to distribute the supplies at the

time they needed them on the ground.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: We are in favor of drugs and other medications as

treatment if somebody comes down with smallpox. But in the meantime,

if there is an outbreak, would you object to forcibly isolating, even

quarantining those people who are infected?

>

>

>

> Fisher: I think quarantine, under proper circumstances, is much

preferable to forcing medication or vaccination, because that truly

puts the individual at risk for injury or death. With a quarantine

you're not mixing those unvaccinated with those who were infected,

which would put a person's life in jeopardy. I think we have to

remember that in times of emergency we need to have the trust of the

citizens, the confidence of the citizens, in any emergency response

plan. When you start forcing people -- not allowing them recourse

even to court, to lawyers in a court -- before you isolate them and

forcibly vaccinate or medicate, this is not a situation that I would

think we would want in our country. The people are going to be

afraid. They are going to be more afraid if the government response

is working against rather than with them.

>

>

>

> There was a bioethicist who had a quote in a newspaper in

California. He said this law, this proposed legislation, treats the

people as the enemy. I think it's the wrong kind of message to send,

particularly in time of fear and confusion that we're now in

following these terrorist attacks.

>

>

>

> Bourne: I think you're forgetting about the individual patient-

physician relationship there. ALEC does not have a policy on

mandatory vaccinations, but a particular patient may have contra-

indications to a vaccine and the physician should make the call.

It's a personal decision, I think, between the patient and the

physician.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Sandy, you refer earlier to some of these groups involved

in this Model State Emergency Health Powers Act as being left of

center. Your group ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council,

is definitely conservative. It's made up of state legislators.

>

>

>

> Sandy: Bipartisan

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Bipartisan. But we have a conservative, former Wisconsin

governor Tommy Thompson, now secretary of Health and Human Services.

And yet he's endorsed this.

>

>

>

> Bourne: I cannot speak for the secretary, I think that since

September 11th our leadership has been faced with some difficulties

that were basically left-over unfinished business from the previous

administration. At a time of anxiety and trying to take control of

these attacks and with agencies still filled with holdovers from the

Clinton administration -- because we've got a Senate that's been

blocking confirmations -- I think bad advice came up. Unfortunately,

sometimes when you're in charge you do things hoping that you're

doing the right thing, but it's based on hope. I think everyone

needs to take a deep breath, look at the facts, look at the research.

As I said earlier we've already debunked anthrax. We found out the

attack didn't work. We've got three antibiotics that can address it.

So let's just slow down and wait and see what happens.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Barbara, you wanted to make a point about where this whole

thing is heading. We have the Model State Emergency Health Powers

Act, but there is other legislation up on Capitol Hill that is going

through, designed to protect the makers of these new controversial

vaccines from any liability.

>

>

>

> Fisher: Yes. The drug makers are asking for totally immunity for

any liability associated with injuries and deaths caused by, for

example, the smallpox vaccine. I think it is important to remember

the smallpox vaccine was never subjected to clinical trials before it

was used on a widespread basis. So even the old vaccine or a new

vaccine that would be created needs to be subjected to modern

standards that are in place to evaluate new vaccines or an old

vaccine as in this case. They are also asking for immunity from

liability for the injuries and deaths. They want to model the

legislation on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which was

passed in 1986. I'm very familiar with that law, because I worked on

it. It has really been tremendously gutted by the Departments of

Health and Human Services and Justice to the extent that 2 out of 3

children who are vaccine-injured and apply for federal compensation

are turned away. So you have a situation where you have drug

companies with no liability but when it comes to the vaccine injuries

and deaths, the government doesn't pay.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Can you give me an estimate if we were to vaccinate

America, how many deaths or injuries would you suspect would come out

of that?

>

>

>

> Fisher: According to one of the expert groups on bio-terrorism

there would be 1 in 4000 people would have severe reactions. That's

about 70,000 severe reactions that would occur in about 280 million

people. They say that 1 in a million dies. Whether that's a low

estimate or not, that would be at least 280 deaths. But you have to

remember that for this vaccine, 1 in 1890 persons will have spread

the lesion from the original site around the body to all sorts of

areas of your body. They might be able to communicate that to other

people that would get sick. It's a highly reactive vaccine. I don't

think we have any idea how many reactions it will cause particularly

in the people under 30 who have never had experience with this virus

at all.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: We can talk about legislation and where it is going but

this is a situation of war. The phrase here -- Emergency Health

Powers. Couldn't the President himself simply short circuit the

legislative process and through executive order say, 'Look we need

this vaccine, we're going to mandate it . We're going to force it on

everybody. We just have to do it for the sake of the country in a

time of emergency and war.' So where does that leave us?

>

>

>

> Fisher: I'm not sure that this president would do that. I suppose

that's a possibility but I think that vaccine laws, for example, are

state laws and the public health laws are state laws.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: They are saying this is the most powerful president since

FDR, in terms of war powers. Couldn't he mandate it?

>

>

>

> Bourne: He's not even close yet to being near president Roosevelt.

Let's go back to our founding fathers here for a moment. When we have

had times of war it is appropriate for the president to take

executive action to protect the country. But let us not forget that

if there has ever been, in our history, an overreach of those powers,

the legislative body has stepped in and taken back some of that

power. It has been cyclical and it has worked every time so let's

not start bashing the president because he is doing what he thinks is

best to protect the country. And he hasn't taken that action in an

executive order to mandate vaccines at this point in time. But what

I'm failing to see across the board is addressing the local response

to terrorism and we're all still thinking high level command and

control. We need to get down to the ground and figure out what we can

do. Pittsburgh has a good model of what we can do. We're talking

about communication. In the reality of war time we can have our

communications knocked out, and we saw that on September 11. The

Emergency Broadcast System did not work in Washington D.C. All the

cell phones were cut off and jammed. So how are these people going

to communicate with each other? We've seen the natural disasters

across the country - phone lines have been taken out. So you have to

rely on radio control. Do you have the effective means to

communicate on the ground? We saw that the response by the

municipalities here in Washington was they weren't able to

communicate with each other.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: You're suggesting that the states, the localities, ought

to concentrate on more practical things.

>

>

>

> Bourne: Absolutely. Because it's the practical responses, the free

thinking responsive individuals on the ground, that are going to

survive and stay alive and prevail over time with this.

>

>

>

> Fisher: This model state legislation puts the entire command of a

public health emergency in the hands of public health officials,

including the right to seal the borders, to appropriate private

property, communications devices, fuel, food, clothing, alcohol,

firearms.

>

>

>

> Bourne: It's backwards. It's the last thing you want to do to allow

people to survive. Other things you want to look at: surveillance and

detection. You want to determine if there was some kind of

bioterrorism attack and address it. You want to decontaminate on the

site. You don't necessarily want to walk into everything and bring

everyone into the hospital. You ought to have interdisciplinary teams

that can go back into an area that you think has been hit and contain

it over there. You want to look at your medical supplies, your

training of first responders. Also, you want to look at the mental

health response..

>

>

>

> Kincaid: This plan is really a excuse to take over the entire

health care system.

>

>

>

> Fisher: Absolutely.

>

>

>

> Bourne: We should focus on what we can do on the ground to enable

people to help themselves.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: But we are in a panic.

>

>

>

> Fisher: Cool heads have to prevail, especially in times of

emergency. People have to feel their government and their local

officials are working with them, not against them - not treating

people as the enemy,

>

>

>

> Kincaid: But people out there are panicked. The federal government

is acting quickly to foist this Model State Emergency Health Powers

Act on the states. And many of the states are eager to carry these

draconian measures forward. What can ordinary people do?

>

>

>

> Fisher: People have to become involved in the legislative process

in the states. They have to monitor their public health committees

for this legislation to be introduced and then they have to be

prepared to leave their jobs, leave their homes, take their babies in

their arms, and go to these hearings and make their voices heard. The

National Vaccine Information Center is going to release a major

report on smallpox and forced vaccination. It will be up on our Webs

site (www.909shot.com) very soon. Education - informing the people -

and then getting involved in the legislative process at the local

level and making sure their legislators know these are not the kinds

of laws they want governing them if an emergency takes place.

>

>

>

> Bourne: I have had a meeting with 60 legislators in Texas and we

talked about this bill coming through. I think what our legislators

can do is focus on a local response. Benjamin Netanyahu, who wrote a

book on fighting terrorism, says over and over again that you need to

educate the public on what they can do for self-defense and to

protect themselves and live with terrorism..This legislation says the

director of public health has the ability to limit firearms and your

ownership of firearms. What is that doing in this bill? That is why,

when I looked at this, it immediately lost credibility to me as a

nurse because we're talking about restricting civil liberties rather

than fighting disease.

>

>

>

> Kincaid: Who is really behind this? The actual author, Lawrence O

Gostin, is professor and director of the Center for Law and the

Public Health at Georgetown University Law Center. Who is he?

>

>

>

> Bourne: This picture is from his book on public health law. You see

a public health policeman. That is what he's all about. Withholding

your civil liberties.

>

>

>

> Fisher: He's a longstanding forced vaccination proponent. I had a

public argument with him at the Institute on Medicine in 1995 on

Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme court decision that is

supposed to be underpinning this law. That 1904 Supreme Court

decision was the one that set the precedent for mandating smallpox

vaccination in this country. That decision said clearly you cannot

harm people by the implementation of this law. But that's being

totally disregarded when they're talking about forced vaccination

under this law.

>

>

>

> Bourne: When he defines public health law, one of his tenets is

coercion. I quote from his book: " Health authorities possess the

power to coerce individuals and businesses for the protection of the

community rather than relying on a near universal ethic of

volunteerism. " I don't know what country he was born in, but I was

born in the United States of America. The founding fathers wanted us

to have volunteerism. The whole principle under which we live is

volunteerism and individual rights. Over and over again Gostin talks

about communal power to protect the community. He attempts to discuss

balancing the Constitution and the power of the federal government

with individual rights but throughout his book and writings he

discusses coercion of individuals and the need for public health

authority.

>

>

>

> Fisher: This model law has already been introduced in

Massachusetts. I think other states are going to fall in line. I

think that it is a tremendous threat. I don't know what's going to

happen. It will depend on the people. If they understand what it is

really about, and they then take the initiative to go in and stop

this, it will be stopped. If the people don't understand what it's

about and don't take the initiativI think it will become law. And

we're going to live to regret it. (30)

>

> =====================================================

>

> Ingri Cassel, President

> Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter

> P.O. Box 1444

> Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816

> (208) 255-2307 / 765-8421

> vaclib@c...

> www.vaclib.org

>

> " The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain "

>

>

>