w*********s
发帖数: 2136 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 WorldNews 讨论区 】
发信人: whiteclouds (/ 参考消息 /), 信区: WorldNews
标 题: 进步主义, 宗教信仰, 与疫苗
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed May 18 20:03:38 2011, 美东)
Progressives And Religious Faith In Vaccines
By R Hammonds
4-17-11
Ralph Nader was once a hero for exposing and going after Ford for their
Pinto which could burst into flames and was killing people. His effort
enshrined in progressives the idea that government should enforce safety
safety standards on corporate products because corporations will do all they
can to slip by with unsafe products if it saves them money.
So why have progressives and liberals gone along with corporate media
demonization (by Bill Gates most recently) of the efforts of parents to
expose dangers of vaccines which, just as with the Pinto, are kill people,
and often small children? And where is Nader now?
Vaccines, like the Pinto, are a corporate product that kills. They have not
only not been taken off the market but they are mandated to infants,
children, young adults and increasing so to healthcare workers, and the list
of mandated vaccines and the list of groups forced to take them, is growing
. Where is Nader as vaccines manufacturers have gotten fundamental vaccine
safeguards removed, have gotten the FDA to argue in court that the public
has no fundamental right to its bodily and physical health, and have just
been given complete immunity from liability by the Supreme Court?
Do progressives think parents seeking more safety (and choice) around
corporate products are doing so in order to endanger other children or that
these parents are on the take? How are thousands of parents putting in
untold time to research these issues, to alert the public to the
pharmaceutical industry bills that remove rights, and to ask for safeguards
and better (non-corporate) studies around vaccines doing anything different
from what Nader once did? How is it different from progressive groups
exposing and standing up to corporate assaults on the public including the
storm of corporate bills threatening pensions, health care, rights to join
unions, etc.? The parents standing up for everyone, around safety and
rights in regard to potentially lethal corporate products being shot into
children, are doing this work without pay and without progressive help as
they face corporate media attacks. And if there is anything progressives
have learned is that corporate media lies and if they are attacking a group
trying to expose something, that something is financially crucial to the
corporations.
The mandating of poorly or untested and liability-free vaccines which can
kill makes a joke of everything Nader worked to achieve in terms of consumer
protect. It goes beyond allowing unsafe products to using the state to
force them on people. And it is occurring at a time when the corporations
are rolling back every other protection for people, so where are
progressives who are fighting that corporate deregulation and removal of
rights in all other areas?
Do progressives think that parents acting as Nader once did and demanding
human rights around vaccines based on the Nuremberg Code (which was designed
to protect the public from a repeat of the pharmaceutical industry's
grotesque experiments at Auschwitz, including with vaccines), are doing
something wrong in demanding that the very same pharmaceutical industry
remain within the framework of the Nuremberg Code?
Are progressives allowing those seeking something as reasonable as vaccine
safety and choice ("informed consent") to be demonized by corporations
because progressives believe vaccines are life saving miracles, and based on
pure science?
If so, then progressives have ditched all progressive principles - in civil
and human rights, in siding with ordinary people who are suffering, in
trusting people's version of reality, not corporate media or government -
and taken on belief in vaccines at a religious level.
Because only religious belief in the miraculous qualities of vaccines would
lead progressives not to recognize them as fallible corporate products and
products worth billions, coming from the most corrupt, powerful and
dangerous industry in the world. Only such faith in vaccines would lead
progressives to give a pass to an industry the WHO has put out a warning
about for its endemic<http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20747.cfm> corruption?
Is it a religious belief in vaccines that makes progressives set vaccines
apart from the persistent and large scale criminal activities of the
pharmaceutical industry which produces them? Is it religious believe that
makes them ignore the severe corruption of science in the studies the
pharmaceutical industry uses to promote them (and drugs)?
What, in short, keeps progressives believing that vaccines are synonymous
with health and "science" when children are dying from them and doctors,
researchers, international agencies and parents are all signaling something
is terribly wrong with the industry that produces them?
How can progressives criticize Bill Gates for his support of Monsanto, and
his working with the Rockefellers to forcie life threatening GMOs on the
third world, yet not see that he and the Rockefellers are also forcing
vaccines as well, and with eagerness to lover world population? Is it blind
faith that creates a historical disconnect in which progressives fail to
remember that the Rockefellers have been devoted to lowering world
population and were engaged in it as funders of Hitler during WWII, a time
in which the pharmaceutical industry ran the concentration camps and
prisoners were experimented on and killed with vaccines? Is it absolute
faith in the goodness of vaccines that allows progressives to forget the
plan Henry Kissinger (closely tied to the Rockefellers and Bush) developed
for the US to use vaccines to covertly sterilize people?
And then there is Bush. The president put in office by and advised by the
pharmaceutical industry (whose family made their money in Germany during
WWWI, who is closely tied to the Rockefellers who are behind the
pharmaceutical industry). The man who inserted in the public's mind the
completely false idea that as with the 1918 flu, we are now threatened with
millions dying from pandemics. At the same time and in the same way,he said
we are all threatened by Muslims terrorists. And he used both terrors he
drummed up himself, to push through the most extreme unconstitutional laws
the country has even seen.
Flu (or virus) did not cause the 1918 deaths, but vaccines forced on
soldiers at the end of WWI may have been what triggered the massive
bacterial infections that suddenly sprang up in 1918, as the pharmaceutical
industry (as it does today) tried to unload left over vaccines and go
military to impose them.
An incomplete list of vaccines given in 1917. Soldiers were given 14-25 at
a time.
colon vaccine
typhoid vaccine
bacterin vaccine
autogenous vaccine
pollen vaccine
pyocyaneus vaccine
yellow fever vaccine
polyvalent vaccine
antipneumococcus vaccine
tetanus vaccine
smallpox vaccine
tuberculin vaccine
diptheria vaccine
a strepticocci, staphylococci, micrococci-catarrhalis, colon bacilli,
pneumoncocci vaccine
Mixed Triple Vaccine (B. typhosus, B. paralyposus a and B. apratyphosus b)
actinofragments vaccine ("New growths include carcinoma of the glands and
esophagus, sarcoma, lymphosarcoma, cysts of various types including dermoid
cysts, gladular enlargements ...")
shot gun vaccine for colds
mixed influenza vaccine
mixed catarrahal vaccines
Is progressive faith in vaccines any different than Catholics who speak of
holiness but deny the sexual predation occurring in the Church, or the part
of the Jewish community that says "never again" to the Warsaw Ghetto but is
fine with walling in Palestinians and denying them basic things to sustain
life?
For those progressives who believe that vaccines lower risk of disease, look
only at the measles vaccine. An unpublished WHO study shows the measles
vaccine increases the risk of measles by 14 times. What is not included is
the death rate that comes with increasing measles to such a level or,
perhaps larger, the death rate from vaccination themselves.
If that is not enough to convince the true believers no one should not trust
vaccines to be miraculously helpful, perhaps a single corporate patent will
do so. Faith drops away in looking at that patent. It becomes undeniable
that vaccines are simply a corporate product, one they hope to make money
off of, and one they not only intend to harm people with, but one they are
trying to beat out competing vaccine manufacturers with - by patenting their
profit-laden achievement in doing damage to people first.
That single patent certainly should pull vaccines out of any realm of the
holy.
What one might call corporations specifically seeking out a means to damage
people and destroy one of the most fundamental of human rights is left to
one's imagination. The UN, though, has given it a name.
This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQTgv_Vs_tU describes the removal of people's rights around vaccines by the Supreme Court, the same court which gave that the pharmaceutical industry which makes those vaccines, personhood. |
|
