Get flu jab or be jailed - in IRELAND

tallaght01

But there's no conspiracy here. No one in the world was planning mandatory vaccination for this bug.

Most countries (as opposed to the WHO) have a part of their pandemic plan to roll out mandatory vaccination if something like ebola hit our shores AND was spreading like wildfire.

That's no secret.

Anyway, at least we've established the initial claims were wrong.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

I've already linked to what a questionable source that woman is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauni-Leena_Luukanen-Kilde#Kilde.27s_rescue_by_extraterrestrials

Had read of that link, and I don't think she's questionable just because she's interested in conspiracy theories. I mean, by that reasoning you yourself are questionable along side everybody else here too - it's a CT forum after all, and there's gonna be references to other people interested in CTs, get over it.


Yesterday I posted a presentation for you to watch by TERESA FORCADES, a medical doctor in Public Health who's looked deeply into the dangers of swine flu vaccine, and urges people into action against forced vaccination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

Her academic credentials are impeccible, and all you could attack her with was a childish rant, fuming about her being 'a bride of a 2,000 year old Zombie' - just because you didn't like the information she was providing? So what if a doctor is a nun, or a priest or an atheist or whatever.


Don't kill the messenger.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Had read of that link, and I don't think she's questionable just because she's interested in conspiracy theories.

She lies about her position, and claims invisible forcefields saved her life

I mean, by that reasoning you yourself are questionable along side everybody else here too

Buh? Strawman.

Yesterday I posted a presentation for you to watch by TERESA FORCADES, a medical doctor in Public Health who's looked deeply into the dangers of swine flu vaccine, and urges people into action against forced vaccination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

Her academic credentials are impeccible,

Are you confident about that? Because your batting average on this isn't fantastic.

IrelandSpirit

tallaght01 wrote: »

But there's no conspiracy here. No one in the world was planning mandatory vaccination for this bug.

Most countries (as opposed to the WHO) have a part of their pandemic plan to roll out mandatory vaccination if something like ebola hit our shores AND was spreading like wildfire.

That's no secret.

Anyway, at least we've established the initial claims were wrong.

Plans for mandatory vaccinations did and do exist across the world. For one, NY healthcare workers have been fighting lawsuits against it for months.

drkpower

CT proponents here seem to post a link to Scientist A or Dr Z and simply say "well, they say B and they have qualifications" and then sit back and think they have made their point. But that is not really evidence of anything. For instance, there are eminent evolutionary biologists who believe in creationism but that doesn't make it so and you would need to explore more widely to see if the argument holds any weight (and you would quickly realise it does not).

You need to consider what specifically these people are saying and measure it against the other scientific knowldege available. And when you do, it becomes clear where the vast propensity of the evidence leads and leaves one to the clear conclusion that, if the CT is to believed, the vast vast majority of doctors/scientists in the field are engaged in a cover up. And while that may be part of someone's CT, it would be barely credicle even on this forum.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

She lies about her position, and claims invisible forcefields saved her life




Buh? Strawman.



Are you confident about that? Because your batting average on this isn't fantastic.

Well, scientists believe an invisible force kills countless people every year. They call it 'gravity'.

my batting average? Jeez... don't throw stones in glasshouses.

Dr Teresa's credentials are as impeccable as it states at the end of her presentation.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Plans for mandatory vaccinations did and do exist across the world. For one, NY healthcare workers have been fighting lawsuits against it for months.

Legislation allowing for detention of those who are a risk to public health has been on our statute books since 1947. There is nothing new in this. It has even been used (very rarely). Having this legislation in place is absolutely vital (if for instance, a highly fatal ebola-like otbreak occurred). Do you sugggest that legislation and plans should not be in place for these disastrous scenarios?

However, plans are plans. Every now and then, the emergency services go through plans for a massive emergency (air/train crash etc) - it doesnt mean that a massive emergency is going to happen. So the presence of these laws/plans does not mean they will actually used to contain swine flu or any other virus. And if, for instance, the plans came into operation tomorrow, the practice would be struck down by the High Court the day after. So dont be too worried.

I would be very interested in these NY legal challenges to a plan that is not in operation. Do you have a link?

tallaght01

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Plans for mandatory vaccinations did and do exist across the world. For one, NY healthcare workers have been fighting lawsuits against it for months.

Ah now you're confusing mandatory vaccination, and talk of jail, with having to be vaccinated to do a certain job.

For me to work as a doctor I have to have hepatitis b shots, and TB shots. Nothing new about protecting patients by making sure docs and nurses aren't going to give them diseases.

Not one NYC healthcare worker will be jailed for not having a shot. It is not mandatory.

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

CT proponents here seem to post a link to Scientist A or Dr Z and simply say "well, they say B and they have qualifications" and then sit back and think they have made their point. But that is not really evidence of anything. For instance, there are eminent evolutionary biologists who believe in creationism but that doesn't make it so and you would need to explore more widely to see if the argument holds any weight (and you would quickly realise it does not).

You need to consider what specifically these people are saying and measure it against the other scientific knowldege available. And when you do, it becomes clear where the vast propensity of the evidence leads and leaves one to the clear conclusion that, if the CT is to believed, the vast vast majority of doctors/scientists in the field are engaged in a cover up. And while that may be part of someone's CT, it would be barely credicle even on this forum.

I agree, and I readily admit that I've most probably made some mistakes in the past and listened to info from questionable people. We probably all have. My point is about Dr Teresa and her credentials is that she wouldn't last long in her vocation as a nun claiming the qualifications she has if it wasn't true. And I don't believe the entire thing is some kind of hoax, and she's simply dressed up in a nun's habit for some dark agenda - now that would be paranoid!

tallaght01

drkpower wrote: »

Legislation allowing for detention of those who are a risk to public health has been on our statute books since 1947. There is nothing new in this. It has even been used (very rarely). Having this legislation in place is absolutely vital (if for instance, a highly fatal ebola-like otbreak occurred). Do you sugggest that legislation and plans should not be in place for these disastrous scenarios?

However, plans are plans. Every now and then, the emergency services go through plans for a massive emergency (air/train crash etc) - it doesnt mean that a massive emergency is going to happen. So the presence of these laws/plans does not mean they will actually used to contain swine flu or any other virus. And if, for instance, the plans came into operation tomorrow, the practice would be struck down by the High Court the day after. So dont be too worried.

I would be very interested in these NY legal challenges to a plan that is not in operation. Do you have a link?

NEJM had an article on it recently, along with some chat about seasonal flu vaccines for NY healthcare staff. So, it's true. They also brought it in for US soldiers.

Nothing particularly new about it, and it's only for people with direct patient contact. It wasn't mandated by the WHO, and there were no punitive measures taken against people who didn't have it. BUt as far as I'm aware, the directive has been rescinded. NOt 100% sure about that though.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Had read of that link, and I don't think she's questionable just because she's interested in conspiracy theories. I mean, by that reasoning you yourself are questionable along side everybody else here too - it's a CT forum after all, and there's gonna be references to other people interested in CTs, get over it.

No she's questionable because she's using a title she doesn't have.
I call that lying.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yesterday I posted a presentation for you to watch by TERESA FORCADES, a medical doctor in Public Health who's looked deeply into the dangers of swine flu vaccine, and urges people into action against forced vaccination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

Her academic credentials are impeccible, and all you could attack her with was a childish rant, fuming about her being 'a bride of a 2,000 year old Zombie' - just because you didn't like the information she was providing? So what if a doctor is a nun, or a priest or an atheist or whatever.


Don't kill the messenger.

And as we pointed out she was already very dishonest about some of the information she presented.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well, scientists believe an invisible force kills countless people every year. They call it 'gravity'.

Thats an asinine analogy. She claims intelligent alien life threw up a forcefield to protect her. Gravity is a physical law, we don't attribute sentience to it.

my batting average? Jeez... don't throw stones in glasshouses.

Really where have I linked to crackpots and snakeoil salesmen?

Dr Teresa's credentials are as impeccable as it states at the end of her presentation.

I can't find anything about her aside from this video, most Doctors don't use youtube as a formal method showing their findings.

Also, the video is the repetition of the same nonsense spread by the flucase, theres nothing new year. She even repeats the claim that from the Star about imprisonment.

Why should I take her seriously when she's just rehashing the same worn out bull****?

IrelandSpirit

drkpower wrote: »

Legislation allowing for detention of those who are a risk to public health has been on our statute books since 1947. There is nothing new in this. It has even been used (very rarely). Having this legislation in place is absolutely vital (if for instance, a highly fatal ebola-like otbreak occurred). Do you sugggest that legislation and plans should not be in place for these disastrous scenarios?

However, plans are plans. Every now and then, the emergency services go through plans for a massive emergency (air/train crash etc) - it doesnt mean that a massive emergency is going to happen. So the presence of these laws/plans does not mean they will actually used to contain swine flu or any other virus. And if, for instance, the plans came into operation tomorrow, the practice would be struck down by the High Court the day after. So dont be too worried.

I would be very interested in these NY legal challenges to a plan that is not in operation. Do you have a link?

I hear you. And I'm getting increasingly reassured that mandatory vaccinations won't be implemented, in regards nations, if things continue as they are.

I have several links for the NY case, it's been in the US news for quite some time. It appears they won it, and then the Obama admin declared a state of national emergency a day or two after - overriding the court's decision.

I'll try dig up the latest for you in bit...

tallaght01

She's also not a public health physician. She does (or did) internal medicine.

drkpower

tallaght01 wrote: »

NEJM had an article on it recently, along with some chat about seasonal flu vaccines for NY healthcare staff. So, it's true. They also brought it in for US soldiers.

Nothing particularly new about it, and it's only for people with direct patient contact. It wasn't mandated by the WHO, and there were no punitive measures taken against people who didn't have it. BUt as far as I'm aware, the directive has been rescinded. NOt 100% sure about that though.

Ah I see; it is required for specific healthcare workers. Well, of course, as you noted above, it is common accepted practice re Hep B etc. So nothing new there either. And as you say, the sanction is vis-a-vis your job, not your liberty.

Of course, if a surgeon infected 100 patients with Hep B, the libertarians and CTers would be the first to jump up and say "why was he allowed to practice if he wasnt vaccinated....?". Cant win really.

King Mob

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, if a surgeon infected 100 patients with Hep B, the libertarians and CTers would be the first to jump up and say "why was he allowed to practice if he wasnt vaccinated....?". Cant win really.

It's the same for the whole issue.
If the governments weren't stockpiling vaccines and rushing the testing, the CT crowd would be saying how they are planning to let the swine flu kill us all. They'd be no doubt saying the vaccines are available and safe but the evil doctor are withholding them.

It's just the usual case of the few people drumming up hysteria and bull**** to sell their crappy books.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats an asinine analogy. She claims intelligent alien life threw up a forcefield to protect her. Gravity is a physical law, we don't attribute sentience to it.



Really where have I linked to crackpots and snakeoil salesmen?



I can't find anything about her aside from this video, most Doctors don't use youtube as a formal method showing their findings.

Also, the video is the repetition of the same nonsense spread by the flucase, theres nothing new year. She even repeats the claim that from the Star about imprisonment.

Why should I take her seriously when she's just rehashing the same worn out bull****?

Look, first of all, believe what you want, nobody's forcing you to believe anything. Secondly... oh why bother, if this is another attempt to draw me into one of your long drawn-out and tedious diatribes about why you consider everybody who researches these conspiracies crackpots and snakeoil salesmen, forget it. Won't work this time.

Consider all information, make up your mind from there. Matters not to me if someone has a personal belief in alien forces or angelic beings or god or ghosts - this does not make someone any more or any less credible in regards the information they provide.

In IMO, it just makes them a little more interesting than the norm. But that's all.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Look, first of all, believe what you want, nobody's forcing you to believe anything. Secondly... oh why bother, if this is another attempt to draw me into one of your long drawn-out and tedious diatribes about why you consider everybody who researches these conspiracies crackpots and snakeoil salesmen, forget it. Won't work this time.

So it doesn't matter that these guys are being dishonest?
The fact that they are saying things that aren't true kind of reflects on their credibility.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Consider all information, make up your mind from there. Matters not to me if someone has a personal belief in alien forces or angelic beings or god or ghosts - this does not make someone any more or any less credible in regards the information they provide.

In IMO, it just makes them a little more interesting than the norm. But that's all.

Well considering that these guys aren't providing any evidence and seem to only repeating their beliefs a quick look into their other beliefs should give an indication about how reliable they are.
For these guys not very.

But why trust these guys at all?
Why not trust any of the other scientists who are saying the vaccine is safe (and who can actually back up their claims with evidence.)?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So it doesn't matter that these guys are being dishonest?
The fact that they are saying things that aren't true kid of reflects on their credibility.


Well considering that these guys aren't providing any evidence and seem to only repeating their beliefs a quick look into their other beliefs should give an indication about how reliable they are.
For these guys not very.

But why trust these guys at all?
Why not trust any of the other scientists who are saying the vaccine is safe (and who can actually back up their claims with evidence.)?

Same goes for you king mob as for diagones. I have, like many others on many of these CT threads, wasted enough time and energy trying to explain our position, and in a reasonable and coherent manner. To which all we get in reply is frothing at the mouth rants about 'brides of Zombies' and so on, whenever your position is no longer defensible.

And I reiterate: if this is another attempt to draw me into one of your long drawn-out and tedious diatribes about why you consider everybody who researches these conspiracies crackpots and snakeoil salesmen, forget it. Won't work this time.

Consider all information, make up your mind from there. Matters not to me if someone has a personal belief in alien forces or angelic beings or god or ghosts - this does not make someone any more or any less credible in regards the information they provide.

In IMO, it just makes them a little more interesting than the norm. But that's all.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Same goes for you king mob as for diagones. I have, like many others on many of these CT threads, wasted enough time and energy trying to explain our position, and in a reasonable and coherent manner.

But you haven't explained your position in a reasonable way. You have only parroted the opinions and scaremongering of people embedded against vaccines.
You have not been able to produce a scrap of evidence for many of your claims and you have moved the goalposts so many times it's not even on the pitch anymore.

You've gone from "mandatory vaccinations are being implemented" to "they are being planed and will soon be implemented" to "they have plans that they probably aren't going to implement".
It's the same for your stance on vaccine safety, lots of backtracking.
But still you are posting claims from people who believe that the governments are dead set on poisoning everyone with the evil vaccines.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

To which all we get in reply is frothing at the mouth rants about 'brides of Zombies' and so on, whenever your position is no longer defensible.

I'm sorry, when did I say that?

And to clarify my position is that there is no evidence that vaccines are harmful and that there is plenty of evidence that they are safe and effective.
How does Diogenes making a crack at catholics invalidate that position?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I reiterate: if this is another attempt to draw me into one of your long drawn-out and tedious diatribes about why you consider everybody who researches these conspiracies crackpots and snakeoil salesmen, forget it. Won't work this time.

And again we don't consider these people crackpots because they are interested in CTs, we call them crackpots because they make a lot of far out claims that have no evidence and are in deference to actual evidence.
So unless they show some good scientific evidence instead of their uninformed opinion, I'm not going to take them seriously.

IrelandSpirit

tallaght01 wrote: »

She's also not a public health physician. She does (or did) internal medicine.

She mentions that she worked in hospitals, but I'm gonna have to watch those vids again at some point as my computer was running slow last night and she offers a lot of information. She did i thought get the 2 shots dosage wrong, but then I realised the vids were done when the WHO were recommending two shots, and not the single shot as I understand the situation now... correct me on that, there might still be situations where they're recommending two.

It is a fascinating watch in any case, and her appeals to stay calm were most welcoming. Mandatory vaccination won't work in the Spain, that's pretty obvious to me after watching that.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Mandatory vaccination won't work in the Spain, that's pretty obvious to me after watching that.

Am I missing something?
Since when are Spain operating a mandatory vaccine policy?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It is a fascinating watch in any case, and her appeals to stay calm were most welcoming. Mandatory vaccination won't work in the Spain, that's pretty obvious to me after watching that.

But isn't she supporting the claim that the vaccines are dangerous and governments know this and don't care?
Not exactly conducive to staying calm.

Nehaxak

bonkey wrote: »

Or maybe the HSE recognises the problem with people perceiving a problem with thimerosal, and so is willing to spend more taxpayer money to avoid a non-issue having a non-trivial effect?

Whatever you may think, it is a climb down on the HSE's part and a small victory for those people who don't like the idea of injecting mercury into their or their childrens bodies. No matter what excuse is brought up or explanation to push it to one side, the fact remains that the HSE climbed down on the issue and are now making available a version of the swine flu vaccine without Thimerosal.
EDIT: Actually a correction on my part, the HSE did not climb down on the issue as they have no say in it at all other than the administration of the vaccine(s). The IMB climbed down on the issue and are sourcing and providing alternatives without Thimerosal.

What I find most interesting is the progression of conspiracy theories. At this point, my impression is that the majority of people who started out with "the government are trying to poison us" have now taken a stance of "the government is trying to poison us by giving us this vaccine instead of that one.

You've now made the next logical step, of applauding the decision to allow you to freely choose "that one" over the one that the mass hysteria has led you to believe is unsafe.

Please don't make up arguments to suit your own purpose as if to suggest I am changing my stance in any way on this.
MY issue with the vaccine has ALWAYS been the use of the version with Thimerosal when there are alternatives available WITHOUT Thimerosal.
The version of the vaccine with Thimerosal was manufactured faster than any other version of the vaccine and thusly available first and in larger quantities than any other version. As the other versions which did not rely on Thimerosal as a preservative were made available, the HSE and other governments' medical bodies around the world have started using them.
My personal issue with the vaccine has been solved as I now can get (if I wanted) the version without Thimerosal.
I see no problem or issue here other than those that have defended the use of Thimerosal in vaccines having to accept the fact that their government and others around the world are now backing down on the issue and providing alternatives without Thimerosal.

Instead of believing the rubbish story in the Star about forced vaccinations, I actually phoned the HSE and talked to them about it, in which conversation and many after they rubbished those claims by that newspaper.

If I was an evil mastermind who wanted to poison people...I'd probably try and plan takeup of something safe, then start rumours and whip up a media storm about it, so that everyone focussed on that one and then flocked to my poisoned one.
If and when more governments start saying "if you are really worried with vaccine X, then take vaccine Y. We'll use your taxes to pay the difference, so its not like we care"....I expect that we'll start hearing the conspiracy theories about how the whole scare was kicked off by Big Pharma so that they could sell more of the more expensive vaccine...or how its because the non-adjuvant one is really the scary one.

Now that, that is a wild conspiracy theory if ever I've heard one, well done.

And getting back to the original topic of this thread....still no sign of enforced vaccination with jail as the alternative...not just in Ireland, but anywhere.

True.

Nehaxak

rameire wrote: »

that vaccine has been available since the programme of vaccinations in ireland has started. and their is a reason it is not available in your local doc.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62876549&postcount=221

No it hasn't been available from the start. It is only a recent move on the part of the IMB to source a version of the vaccine without Thimerosal.

No doubt we'll hopefully also be seeing the introduction of the flu mist spray sometime soon too.

rameire

Nehaxak wrote: »

No it hasn't been available from the start. It is only a recent move on the part of the IMB to source a version of the vaccine without Thimerosal.

No doubt we'll hopefully also be seeing the introduction of the flu mist spray sometime soon too.

the vacination programme in ireland started officially on the 2nd of November,
from this point both vaccines were available to the public from the HSE centres. is this not correct.

bonkey

Now that, that is a wild conspiracy theory if ever I've heard one, well done.

Why thank you. This is, after all, the Conspiracy Theories forum, and not "Politics Lite" or "Medical Opinion" or somesuch.

Nehaxak

rameire wrote: »

the vacination programme in ireland started officially on the 2nd of November,
from this point both vaccines were available to the public from the HSE centres. is this not correct.

Yes actually you are correct. Officially started on the 2nd.
Though typical of the health service in Ireland, it has actually taken them this long to start a vaccination programme at all.
Given the HSE were telling us through the media about how we should all get the vaccination long before the "official" start of the programme, if the Swine Flu stood up to all the mass hysteria made about it, we'd probably all be dead by now waiting on the health service and IMB to get up off their fat cat public job arses to do anything at all.

That's the biggest thing people miss in all of this, there's absolutely no chance the health service in this country could invoke any law to make vaccinations compulsory as it would actually mean them having to earn their fat public job paychecks for a change - and that is just not going to happen.

tallaght01

rameire wrote: »

the vacination programme in ireland started officially on the 2nd of November,
from this point both vaccines were available to the public from the HSE centres. is this not correct.

Yea let's just deal in facts here. There was no "climb down" here.

GP surgery vaccines need a preservative. Vaccine clinic ones don't. So GP surgery vaccines have a preservative added, and vaccine clinics don't.

I've no idea what the conspiracy is, but there you have it.

bonkey

This thread remains open in case someone wants to discuss the original topic - the notion of a conspiracy to have legally-enforced vaccination in Ireland

Read this post before even thinking about posting on some other aspect of the thread.

Run_to_da_hills

Appropriate cartoon for forced vaccinations.

Either shot could kill you :eek:

<mod snip> image removed </modsnip>

6th

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Appropriate cartoon for forced vaccinations.

Either shot could kill you :eek:

<mod snip> image removed </modsnip>

Infracted for sensationalist crap with no content or discussion.

IrelandSpirit

Despite all the media fear-mongering about swine flu, it has not been as virulent as predicted. I think too many people would cop on that 'something just ain't right' if the WHO mandated forced vaccination here, at this stage. The resistance would be huge.

So unless the virus 'somehow' mutates into a more lethal strain, which in itself would raise a lot of questions, I think we're out of the woods for now as regards this topic.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think we're out of the woods for now as regards this topic.

Were we ever 'in the woods'?

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Despite all the media fear-mongering about swine flu, it has not been as virulent as predicted. I think too many people would cop on that 'something just ain't right' if the WHO mandated forced vaccination here, at this stage. The resistance would be huge.

.

For someone who's been claiming that there is a mandatory enforced vaccine suggesting other people are scaremongering about H1N1 is beyond rich.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

For someone who's been claiming that there is a mandatory enforced vaccine suggesting other people are scaremongering about H1N1 is beyond rich.

lol! scaremongering! Excuse me, are you at it again? or are you perhaps on the wrong forum - please do check the title and the first post re:

The Irish Daily Sunday Star reports that the Irish health department is planning to activate provisions in the 1947 Health Act to enforce mandatory "swine flu" vaccinations.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

lol! scaremongering! Excuse me, are you at it again? or are you perhaps on the wrong forum - please do check the title and the first post re:

The Irish Daily Sunday Star reports that the Irish health department is planning to activate provisions in the 1947 Health Act to enforce mandatory "swine flu" vaccinations.

And yet two months later, theres no word of this nonsense.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think too many people would cop on that 'something just ain't right' if the WHO mandated forced vaccination here, at this stage. The resistance would be huge.

Given that WHO has no authority to mandate any such thing, here or anywhere else, I'm pretty sure the resistance would be huge.

Drummer Mummer

Gosh, that all sounds scary!

<Edited by bonkey. Please see here>

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

Given that WHO has no authority to mandate any such thing, here or anywhere else, I'm pretty sure the resistance would be huge.

"WHO has just released its “Whole of Society Pandemic readiness guidelines" first prepared in April 2009, the same month the swine flu virus mysteriously appeared in Mexico City, and revised in July 2009.
The plan outlines how WHO will take over a country’s essential services, including water and sanitation; fuel and energy; food; health care; telecommunications; finance; law and order; education; and transportation under the pretext of a pandemic emergency.
WHO claims even a moderate flu “pandemic” will “test the limits of resilience of nations, companies, and communities, depending on their capacity to respond” and require WHO to assume charge of government functions..."


Full article continues here:



http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1704%3Awho-publishes-plans-to-take-over-the-whole-of-society-in-pandemic-emergency&catid=41%3Ahighlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=sv

douglashyde

You'd want to be mentaly challenged to belive this.

humanji

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

"WHO has just released its “Whole of Society Pandemic readiness guidelines" first prepared in April 2009, the same month the swine flu virus mysteriously appeared in Mexico City, and revised in July 2009.
The plan outlines how WHO will take over a country’s essential services, including water and sanitation; fuel and energy; food; health care; telecommunications; finance; law and order; education; and transportation under the pretext of a pandemic emergency.
WHO claims even a moderate flu “pandemic” will “test the limits of resilience of nations, companies, and communities, depending on their capacity to respond” and require WHO to assume charge of government functions..."


Full article continues here:



http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1704%3Awho-publishes-plans-to-take-over-the-whole-of-society-in-pandemic-emergency&catid=41%3Ahighlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=sv

Maybe you should actually read the report instead of taking what a conspiracy site says as gospel.

The report is about how a government should try and prepare for a worse case scenario just in case, and how it should delegate various roles to different areas instead of trying to do it all themselves. It's really not that scary when you read it. It's just common sense.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

"WHO has just released its “Whole of Society Pandemic readiness guidelines" first prepared in April 2009, the same month the swine flu virus mysteriously appeared in Mexico City, and revised in July 2009.
The plan outlines how WHO will take over a country’s essential services, including water and sanitation; fuel and energy; food; health care; telecommunications; finance; law and order; education; and transportation under the pretext of a pandemic emergency.

The plan, however, does no such thing. It does not outline how WHO will take over anything...but rather makes recommendations of what it believes a country should do in order to be able to best handle a pandemic emergency.

Even with the interpretation your article puts on it, it is at best (or worst) a document where WHO is suggesting that it be given powers it does not currently have. This supports what I said, namely that WHO does not have the ability to mandate forced vaccination.

macshadow

<url snipped by bonkey>


How long will this one remain?

bonkey

macshadow wrote: »

<url snipped by bonkey>


How long will this one remain?

I don't know if that question was about how long I'd leave your URL in place, but if so the answer is now known.

That was completely off-topic, and clearly linking to content of the nature I have said is not going to be tolerated in H1N1 discussions any more.

Take a week off.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

The plan, however, does no such thing. It does not outline how WHO will take over anything...but rather makes recommendations of what it believes a country should do in order to be able to best handle a pandemic emergency.

Even with the interpretation your article puts on it, it is at best (or worst) a document where WHO is suggesting that it be given powers it does not currently have. This supports what I said, namely that WHO does not have the ability to mandate forced vaccination.

WHO Checklist For Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Planning

1.5 Legal and ethical issues

1.5.1 Legal issues
Rationale
During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or
(individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine
(overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned build-
ings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or im-
plementation of emergency shifts in essential services. These decisions
need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification
of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with
international legislation (International Health Regulations).


http://www.scribd.com/doc/1748.....todown=pdf

bonkey

I'm not sure if you're trying to post something to show me that I'm right, or trying to suggest that I'm wrong.

I'll assume the latter....

Where in that section is it contradicting what I said?

The most that can be read into that paragraph is that WHO is asking to be given this ability...an ability that it does not currently have.

This is exactly what I said.

WHO does not have the ability to mandate anything, as was originally suggested. This document, with the most sinister interpretation possible, is a situation where the WHO is trying to make a case as to why it should be given this ability....which would be nonsensical if it already had the ability.

An alternate interpretation (one I would argue is more likely) is that the WHO is telling a national government what it (the national government) should have in place, so that it (the national government) has the ability to choose to take these steps should they be necessary. It is not suggesting that control be ceded to WHO, but rather that the government makes sure its in a position to work with WHO, other nations, and/or any relevant international effort should it find itself in a position where it both needs and wants to.

Also...please pay attention to the final sentence...

These decisions need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification
of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with
international legislation (International Health Regulations).

The purpose of having a legal framework in place is to ensure that any action taken during a pandemic is transparently assessed, justifiable, and compliant with international legislation. How is that a bad thing? The alternate is allowing secretive decisions to be made, potentially without justifiable reasons, or with no regard for international legislation. How is that preferable?

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're trying to post something to show me that I'm right, or trying to suggest that I'm wrong.

I'll assume the latter....

Where in that section is it contradicting what I said?

The most that can be read into that paragraph is that WHO is asking to be given this ability...an ability that it does not currently have.

This is exactly what I said.

WHO does not have the ability to mandate anything, as was originally suggested. This document, with the most sinister interpretation possible, is a situation where the WHO is trying to make a case as to why it should be given this ability....which would be nonsensical if it already had the ability.

An alternate interpretation (one I would argue is more likely) is that the WHO is telling a national government what it (the national government) should have in place, so that it (the national government) has the ability to choose to take these steps should they be necessary. It is not suggesting that control be ceded to WHO, but rather that the government makes sure its in a position to work with WHO, other nations, and/or any relevant international effort should it find itself in a position where it both needs and wants to.

Also...please pay attention to the final sentence...

These decisions need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification
of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with
international legislation (International Health Regulations).

The purpose of having a legal framework in place is to ensure that any action taken during a pandemic is transparently assessed, justifiable, and compliant with international legislation.

Yes, and perhaps that legal framework is already in place, section 32 Health Act:

(b) The Minister may by order declare that-

(i) it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult personsshould submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease


And the same applies to children...



I'm not knocking your alternative interpretation (and I hope yours is right!), but it must be remembered that Ireland is signed onto the WHO and it is a legally binding contract; they tell us when we have a pandemic; they set the levels in regards what a pandemic supposedly is, and we are bound by their guidelines so long as (one presumes) their guidelines don't contravene our laws: in this case mandatory immunisation. It isn't perhaps about ceding control to the WHO, but rather that the government might have no legal position other than to as you say, to work with the WHO - which amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end.



But that's only my interpretation so far...

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yes, and perhaps that legal framework is already in place, section 32 Health Act:

(b) The Minister may by order declare that-

(i) it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult personsshould submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease

That doesn't say anything about handing over power to the WHO.
If fact I don't think this article has ever been used.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And the same applies to children...

Say who exactly?
Cause that article is fairly clear: "All Adult Persons"

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I'm not knocking your alternative interpretation (and I hope yours is right!),
but it must be remembered that Ireland is signed onto the WHO and it is a legally binding contract;

Then if it's a legally binding contract you should be able to point out where exactly it allows the WHO to do what you claim.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

they tell us when we have a pandemic; they set the levels in regards what a pandemic supposedly is,

Pandemic have a strict definition they don't just make it up as the go along.
A pandemic is when an illness is passed on from human to human on every continent in the world.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

and we are bound by their guidelines so long as (one presumes) their guidelines don't contravene our laws: in this case mandatory immunisation. It isn't perhaps about ceding control to the WHO, but rather that the government might have no legal position other than to as you say, to work with the WHO - which amounts to pretty much the same thing in the end.

But that's only my interpretation so far...

This is very different to what you were claiming, that the WHO would take over.

Now it seems the most you think they can do is recommend courses of action.
Which is what they do.

And the WHO doesn't recommend mandatory vaccination for the general population.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

That doesn't say anything about handing over power to the WHO.
If fact I don't think this article has ever been used.


Say who exactly?
Cause that article is fairly clear: "All Adult Persons"


Then if it's a legally binding contract you should be able to point out where exactly it allows the WHO to do what you claim.

Pandemic have a strict definition they don't just make it up as the go along.
A pandemic is when an illness is passed on from human to human on every continent in the world.


This is very different to what you were claiming, that the WHO would take over.

Now it seems the most you think they can do is recommend courses of action.
Which is what they do.

And the WHO doesn't recommend mandatory vaccination for the general population.

The WHO recommends vaccination for everybody; high risks groups first. If and when those 'recommendations' become mandatory will probably depend on a number factors we've already gone through on previous posts.

But how can you seriously believe the Health Act does not apply to children?

It applies to children too, read the Health Act:

The Minister may by order declare that—

it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all children should be submitted to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against that infectious disease


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0028/sec0032.html#zza28y1947s32

How can you seriously believe the IHR are not legally binding?

They are legally binding in Ireland, read the WHO website:


"International Health Regulations

The International Health Regulations (IHR) are a legally-binding instrument of international law..."

http://www.who.int/en/

Edit: You might want to check out Article 21 of the WHO Constitution too.