Plan for Medical Dictatorship and Total Control of Health Care Decisions

[Guest guest]

-

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

www.vaclib.org

 

" The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain "