- 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.
|
