Get flu jab or be jailed - in IRELAND

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

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.

Stop a second.

The WHO cannot mandate vaccination. I thought we had agreed on this?

The absolute most the WHO could do is recommend that the government mandate something. The government still have a choice...they can follow WHO guidelines/recommendations, or not.

Now...I know you'd like to invoke the IHR here, but before you do, I'd strongly recommend that you consider that there is nothing in the IHR which could enable them to do this. Yes, the IHR is binding....but no, it does not give the WHO the power to mandate vaccination.

And to try and head hte next objection off at the pass, the WHO can't just arbitrarily change the IHR to give itself such powers.

So we're back to where we started.

The WHO cannot mandate vaccination. It does not have the power to do so.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

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

I'll see your article 21, and raise you Article 22.

For those too lazy to check the articles...

Article 21 allows the Health Assembly to "adopt regulations concerning
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;"

Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations, by nothing more difficult then registering their rejection of same.

ETA: I find it difficult to credit that you read the WHO Constitution in detail, until you found exactly what you were looking for, and hten didn't read a single article further. This leads me to the conclusion that either you're already aware that Article 22 undermines your argument but chose to ignore it, or you present Article 21 because someone has presented it to you as grounds to be wary....and you didn't go and look into the claim in any detail. Neither option seems to promote faith in your position.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

Stop a second.

The WHO cannot mandate vaccination. I thought we had agreed on this?

The absolute most the WHO could do is recommend that the government mandate something. The government still have a choice...they can follow WHO guidelines/recommendations, or not.

Now...I know you'd like to invoke the IHR here, but before you do, I'd strongly recommend that you consider that there is nothing in the IHR which could enable them to do this. Yes, the IHR is binding....but no, it does not give the WHO the power to mandate vaccination.

And to try and head hte next objection off at the pass, the WHO can't just arbitrarily change the IHR to give itself such powers.

So we're back to where we started.

The WHO cannot mandate vaccination. It does not have the power to do so.

Ok, thanks, that puts my mind at rest... well in so far as I'd trust our government to have any balls! Just my opinion though...

Still reading up on the WHOs review of IHR:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yZEz0JjjR6MJ:apps.who.int/gb/ghs/pdf/IHR_IGWG2_ID2-en.pdf+article+21+Sanitary+and+quarantine+requirements+and+other+procedures+to+prevent+the+international+spread+of+disease%3B&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbQ_ji_pPRt3Vku9GVW6ADG6nFHSMw

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I'll see your article 21, and raise you Article 22.

For those too lazy to check the articles...

Article 21 allows the Health Assembly to "adopt regulations concerning
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;"

Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations, by nothing more difficult then registering their rejection of same.

ETA: I find it difficult to credit that you read the WHO Constitution in detail, until you found exactly what you were looking for, and hten didn't read a single article further. This leads me to the conclusion that either you're already aware that Article 22 undermines your argument but chose to ignore it, or you present Article 21 because someone has presented it to you as grounds to be wary....and you didn't go and look into the claim in any detail. Neither option seems to promote faith in your position.

No, i didn't read the entire WHO Constitution, but I am aware that article 21 and 22 act together... give me a few moments!

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I'll see your article 21, and raise you Article 22.

For those too lazy to check the articles...

Article 21 allows the Health Assembly to "adopt regulations concerning
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;"

Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations, by nothing more difficult then registering their rejection of same.

ETA: I find it difficult to credit that you read the WHO Constitution in detail, until you found exactly what you were looking for, and hten didn't read a single article further. This leads me to the conclusion that either you're already aware that Article 22 undermines your argument but chose to ignore it, or you present Article 21 because someone has presented it to you as grounds to be wary....and you didn't go and look into the claim in any detail. Neither option seems to promote faith in your position.

Ok, article 21 states: the Health Assembly shall have the authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) Sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures to prevent the international spread of disease


'Other procedures' being the words to note there as regards the topic of this thread IMO.



Then as you say, article 22 appears to undermine that or provide a 'get out:'


Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21 shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given after their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Right, 'within the period stated in the notice'. This was all back in 2005 Bonkey...

Do you know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

Because if we didn't then it suggests that it is legally binding...

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

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.

Recommends people to get vaccinations, not recommends governments to enforce mandatory vaccinations.
There is simply no mechanism by which any recommendation from the WHO can become mandatory.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

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

Because the article you post specifically mentions adults not children?
You even bolded that part.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

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.

So which part of it exactly allows the WHO to supersede Irish law? Or allows them to force anything on any country?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ok, article 21 states: the Health Assembly shall have the authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) Sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures to prevent the international spread of disease


'Other procedures' being the words to note there as regards the topic of this thread IMO.



Then as you say, article 22 appears to undermine that or provide a 'get out:'


Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21 shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given after their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Right, 'within the period stated in the notice'. This was all back in 2005 Bonkey...

Do you know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

Because if we didn't then it suggests that it is legally binding...

Hang on now.

So you now see that the WHO can't force anything on any country as per article 22.
All they have to do is say no.

This is a far, far cry from what you were claiming.
Keep moving those goal posts!

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So which part of it exactly allows the WHO to supersede Irish law? Or allows them to force anything on any country?

Estoppal by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim.

Did our government offer any challenge to article 21?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Estoppal by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim.

Did our government offer any challenge to article 21?

So the Irish government could get out of the WHO "Demand" by saying no?
Not exactly forcing anything.

And when exactly have the WHO demanded mandatory vaccines be enforced?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on now.

So you now see that the WHO can't force anything on any country as per article 22.
All they have to do is say no.

This is a far, far cry from what you were claiming.
Keep moving those goal posts!

No, I'm saying that article 22 appears to have offered members the chance to raise objections, it's a 'get out', but it has a time limit and once past that, it stands.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I'm saying that article 22 appears to have offered members the chance to raise objections, it's a 'get out', but it has a time limit and once past that, it stands.

So they can't force anything on anyone.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So the Irish government could get out of the WHO "Demand" by saying no?
Not exactly forcing anything.

And when exactly have the WHO demanded mandatory vaccines be enforced?

Do you know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Do you know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

Against what exactly?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Against what exactly?

What do you think?

Ok, re Bonkey's post:


"For those too lazy to check the articles...

Article 21 allows the Health Assembly to "adopt regulations concerning
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;"

Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations, by nothing more difficult then registering their rejection of same."

Please read and follow the thread.

Do you, does ANYBODY out there know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What do you think?

Ok, re Bonkey's post:


"For those too lazy to check the articles...

Article 21 allows the Health Assembly to "adopt regulations concerning
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;"

Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations, by nothing more difficult then registering their rejection of same."

Please read and follow the thread.

Do you, does ANYBODY out there know if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21?

Maybe you should read you own posts.

Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations.
Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations by just saying no to those regulations, not to article 21.

So what regulations has the WHO suggested to which you think the government should have said no to.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you should read you own posts.

Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations.
Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations by just saying no to those regulations, not to article 21.

So what regulations has the WHO suggested to which you think the government should have said no to.

I'm sorry, but you are really not making any sense!

"Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations."

Yes.

"Article 22 allows members to avoid adopting any such regulations by just saying no to those regulations..."

Yes, but past tense, the times up as far as I understand that article.

"... not to article 21"

What are you on about? But Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations, we just agreed!

So what we need to know is if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21. Then we'll know if we've acquiesced or not to whatever the WHO deems fit for us as regards quarantine, mandatory inoculations and all the rest.

That's the situation as I understand it...

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you are really not making any sense!

No it's that you don't understadn the articles.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

"... not to article 21"

What are you on about? But Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations, we just agreed!

Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations.
Articles 22 allows members to reject those regulations.

Article 22 doesn't let members reject article 21.

You're just completely misunderstanding the articles.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

So what we need to know is if Ireland raised any rejections/reservations as regards article 21. Then we'll know if we've acquiesced or not to whatever the WHO deems fit for us as regards quarantine, mandatory inoculations and all the rest.

Ok Ireland cannot raise any rejections/reservations against article 21 itself.
We can however raise rejections/reservations against any regulations adopted as per article 21.

No such regulations about mandatory vaccines have been adopted by the WHO, so there is nothing to reject.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That's the situation as I understand it...

Nope you've completely misunderstood it completely.
Especially since you didn't know about article 22 till bonkey showed it to you.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

that puts my mind at rest... well in so far as I'd trust our government to have any balls!

You're moving the goalposts. The point under discussion is whether or not the WHO can mandate something. They can't.

The question as to what our government's response would be, in a given hypothetical situation, to a recommendation by the WHO is not one that we've been discussing, so your trust (or lack thereof) in our government smacks of little more then wanting to continue to find reasons to sow mistrust.

But hopefully we're agreed...the WHO do not currently have the ability to mandate things.

Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21 shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given after their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Right, 'within the period stated in the notice'. This was all back in 2005 Bonkey...

What was all the way back in 2005?

There is currently no regulation which gives the WHO the ability to legally mandate anything. Once again, I find myself asking that I thought we had agreed on that much at least.

What you now seem to be suggesting is that if such a regulation came into existance at some point in the future, the only nations who could reject implementing it would be those who rejected it years before it existed!!!!

Do you honestly believe that this is how it should be interepreted?

ETA: On review...it appears that you've completely misread Article 22. It does not refer to the rejection of articles. It refers to the rejection of regulations adopted under article 21.

Article 22 gives any nation the ability to reject any regulation that comes into effect under Article 21....not reject the article itself. THat is why it refers to "Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21", and not "article 21"....as you so helpfully quoted.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

No it's that you don't understadn the articles.
Article 21 allows them to adopt regulations.
Articles 22 allows members to reject those regulations.

Article 22 doesn't let members reject article 21.

You're just completely misunderstanding the articles.


Ok Ireland cannot raise any rejections/reservations against article 21 itself.
We can however raise rejections/reservations against any regulations adopted as per article 21.

No such regulations about mandatory vaccines have been adopted by the WHO, so there is nothing to reject.



Nope you've completely misunderstood it completely.
Especially since you didn't know about article 22 till bonkey showed it to you.

I was trying to read this while simultaneously answering both you and Bonkey at the same time, and I did know about article 22 because it's reviewed there along side article 21:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yZEz0JjjR6MJ:apps.who.int/gb/ghs/pdf/IHR_IGWG2_ID2-en.pdf+article+21+Sanitary+and+quarantine+requirements+and+other+procedures+to+prevent+the+international+spread+of+disease%3B&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbQ_ji_pPRt3Vku9GVW6ADG6nFHSMw

My point, and I'm quite prepared and hoping to be wrong in this, is that Article 22 doesn't let members reject article 21, true, and it doesn't let members reject regulations pertaining to that article either once past the time limit: 'within the period stated in the notice'

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

What you now seem to be suggesting is that if such a regulation came into existance at some point in the future, the only nations who could reject implementing it would be those who rejected it years before it existed!!!!

Do you honestly believe that this is how it should be interepreted?

tbh yes that's how I interpret it...

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

My point, and I'm quite prepared and hoping to be wrong in this, is that Article 22 doesn't let members reject article 21, true, and it doesn't let members reject regulations pertaining to that article either once past the time limit: 'within the period stated in the notice'

You are wrong, because you're completely misunderstanding the articles.

It does let members reject regulations up to the time limit which would be stated with the particular regulation.

No such regulation that enforces mandatory vaccinations exists for anyone to reject.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I 'within the period stated in the notice'

The notice mentioned is the noticed mentioned earlier in article 22, which is the due notice given after a new regulation has been adopted persuant to article 21.

The sequence of events is clear...

Regulation adopted
Due Notice given
Member states reject regulation or adopt it.
Member states inform as to which of these options they taken.

I honestly can't understand how you can be so consistently misreading such a small amount of text.

IrelandSpirit

ok, thanks, I just needed to be 100% clear for myself and when I meet up again with the people who pointed this out to me.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

ok, thanks, I just needed to be 100% clear for myself and when I meet up again with the people who pointed this out to me.

So you now agree that the WHO cannot enforce mandatory vaccinations.
Do you agree that there are no plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations in Ireland or anywhere else?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So you now agree that the WHO cannot enforce mandatory vaccinations.
Do you agree that there are no plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations in Ireland or anywhere else?

I don't think they can, no, not if our government objects and if we've interpreted things correctly. But as to whether or not there are plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations in Ireland or anywhere else, I'm still unsure...

Aside from Saudi Arabia which won't let anybody in the country for this year's pilgramige without being vaccinated, which presumably applies non-Muslims too, but... I'm assuming that you mean covert plans? Sure, a lot can happen, and they can plan away all they like if they are, but they're not forcing anything like that on me, not without a fight - and I can only speak for myself, but I believe that would be true for many people here, and elsewhere.

Would you agree with forced vaccination in Ireland? I mean you personally, and I'm presuming you've had the jab by your unwavering support for it, or that at least you will have it at the earliest opportunity, but would you like to see everybody else lining up and rolling up their sleeves against their wishes?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I don't think they can, no, not if our government objects and if we've interpreted things correctly.

And you'd agree this is very different to what you were originally claiming?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But as to whether or not there are plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations in Ireland or anywhere else, I'm still unsure...

And what, besides baseless paranoia, leads you to think that there are plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

but... I'm assuming that you mean covert plans?

No I mean something you can back up with evidence, not baseless and unfalsifiable conjecture.
You may as well say there's covert plans to set up mandatory moon mining missions.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Would you agree with forced vaccination in Ireland? I mean you personally, and I'm presuming you've had the jab by your unwavering support for it, or that at least you will have it at the earliest opportunity, but would you like to see everybody else lining up and rolling up their sleeves against their wishes?

No I would not agree with mandatory vaccinations.
However even if there were mandatory vaccinations I'd still be arguing that the vaccines are safe (mostly cause that's what the evidence shows).

And to be clear I don't plan to have the vaccine.
I'm not in the risk groups or have regular contact with anyone in the risk groups.
But that's completely irrelevant to the issue.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I mean you personally, and I'm presuming you've had the jab by your unwavering support for it, or that at least you will have it at the earliest opportunity, but would you like to see everybody else lining up and rolling up their sleeves against their wishes?

You're crossing a line there...

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

And what, besides baseless paranoia, leads you to think that there are plans to introduce mandatory vaccinations?

Well we're already forced-medicated daily (fluoride) and based on that, well... ok, look, I hope it is baseless paranoia, I really do, and I'm glad that you would not agree with mandatory vaccinations, regardless of whether you believe they are safe or not. Just needed to see where you were coming from, that's all.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well we're already forced-medicated daily (fluoride) and based on that, well... ok,

Oh yes that's such a terrible thing.

But it's no way comparable to what you were claiming.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

look, I hope it is baseless paranoia, I really do,

So maybe you could provide a base for it?
Cause seems all you have is your baseless suspicion.

It's exactly the same as if I starting saying "I'm unsure if the government is planing to send us all to the moon."

And for all this "hoping to be wrong" you seem to have a hard time admitting you're wrong despite the fact you have backed down from most of your claims.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Oh yes that's such a terrible thing.

But it's no way comparable to what you were claiming.


So maybe you could provide a base for it?
Cause seems all you have is your baseless suspicion.

It's exactly the same as if I starting saying "I'm unsure if the government is planing to send us all to the moon."

And for all this "hoping to be wrong" you seem to have a hard time admitting you're wrong despite the fact you have backed down from most of your claims.

Yes it is terrible to be medicated against your will, and that is not baseless paranoia, forced medication is happening daily so on based on that I would think it is not baseless to suspect that they might be planning forced vaccination for some time in the future...

Ah, second half!

bonkey

I was wondering when someone would get around to suggesting that fluoridation is somehow analagous to forced vaccination...

I'm honestly surprised it took so long.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Yes it is terrible to be medicated against your will,

But surely you can see the difference between adding a substance in water (or take it out in some places) who's only effect is giving you healthier teeth, and giving people a novel vaccine.
Foremost of which is cost.
It's silly to compare the two.

Oh and you can buy bottled water if you're that afraid of the boogeyman in the water.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

and that is not baseless paranoia, forced medication is happening daily so on based on that I would think it is not baseless to suspect that they might be planning forced vaccination for some time in the future...

Yes it is baseless paranoia when you have no evidence what so ever to show that any government is planing forced vaccinations.

So do you still honestly believe that they are planning to have them even though practically every claim you've made collapses under scrutiny?

meglome

This thread is now 184 posts long and as far as I can see there's not one bit of evidence to show that anyone is going to be forced to be vaccinated.

Some of my friends have now had swine flu and they all say it was the worst flu they ever had, most eventually took medication as it went on so long and was so bad. They hadn't had injections before and only took pills this time as it was obviously a very serious flu. It's really simple for me, if you want to 'infect' a population then there are several better/simpler/cheaper ways to do it than giving injections. This whole CT makes no sense.

IrelandSpirit

hahahhahahahhaha...

hahhahaahahhaaaaa......... why am i laughing? i dunno..... hahhahaahaha........

oh, wait! Flouride is good for your teeth!!! hahahaahahhaha......... haahahahhaha....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4J5j74VPw

Bolero is good for your brain seriously, see above.

ok, Bonkey, no harm intended in all my laughter but infract away, ban away if you want. Do it... all is good

IrelandSpirit

meglome wrote: »

This thread is now 184 posts long and as far as I can see there's not one bit of evidence to show that anyone is going to be forced to be vaccinated.

Some of my friends have now had swine flu and they all say it was the worst flu they ever had, most eventually took medication as it went on so long and was so bad. They hadn't had injections before and only took pills this time as it was obviously a very serious flu. It's really simple for me, if you want to 'infect' a population then there are several better/simpler/cheaper ways to do it than giving injections. This whole CT makes no sense.

meglome!!! how are ya? I agree! it makes no sense, we are all a handle short of a pick axe to even be spending our time here - you are RIGHT!

meglome

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

meglome!!! how are ya? I agree! it makes no sense, we are all a handle short of a pick axe to even be spending our time here - you are RIGHT!

I'm kind of disinterested in whether I'm right or not, I would however like to get to the facts. I love a good story, it's why I read so much but there's far too much fiction and general scaremongering about swine flu. Maybe if everyone could use the same standard of proof no matter where their information is coming from, instead of latching on to whatever far fetched story comes along as it fits with some preconceived notion or other.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

hahahhahahahhaha...

hahhahaahahhaaaaa......... why am i laughing? i dunno..... hahhahaahaha........

oh, wait! Flouride is good for your teeth!!! hahahaahahhaha......... haahahahhaha....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4J5j74VPw

Bolero is good for your brain seriously, see above.

ok, Bonkey, no harm intended in all my laughter but infract away, ban away if you want. Do it... all is good

So basically you get all your info from youtube and other crackpot websites?

There's a difference between having an open mind and buying any nonsense that fits into your preconceived notions.

6th

Lads, cop on.

IrelandSpirit

meglome wrote: »

I'm kind of disinterested in whether I'm right or not, I would however like to get to the facts. I love a good story, it's why I read so much but there's far too much fiction and general scaremongering about swine flu. Maybe if everyone could use the same standard of proof no matter where their information is coming from, instead of latching on to whatever far fetched story comes along as it fits with some preconceived notion or other.

I think it's just a personal narrative in the end, we all string along a story that makes sense to us, and i think we're all guilty to greater or lesser degrees of highlighting certain facts over others for the sake of coherency. The truth is we don't know the truth. And that vacuum of uncertainty can be manipulated into fear, which in turn makes us more suggestible and easier to control, or uncertainty can invoke a sense of mystery and awe into our lives, if we allow it. Life is truly a miraculous event, regardless...

That article in the Star, a mainstream paper running a front-page story that the government plans for mandatory vaccination is, well... it reads like a conspiracy; i mean, I'm not saying the Star is a bastion of integrity when it comes to reporting, but it reads like something lifted straight out of prisonplanet or David Icke's website, and what i ask myself is why would a mainstream paper run a 'tinfoil hat' story in the first place. Is it all pure scaremongering, sensationalism perhaps, is there some truth to it?

Gonna read it again...

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you get all your info from youtube and other crackpot websites?

There's a difference between having an open mind and buying any nonsense that fits into your preconceived notions.

Jeezus, i honestly don't remember writing that post! I remember watching the match, the pub and then ... those last whiskies, that was it.. anyway, forgive me if it upset you, looking now with more sober eyes I think what I wanted to say, or at least my point is that using forced medication of fluoride as a basis, I think it's perhaps naive to believe the government hasn't at least thought about mandatory vaccination too.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think it's just a personal narrative in the end, we all string along a story that makes sense to us, and i think we're all guilty to greater or lesser degrees of highlighting certain facts over others for the sake of coherency. The truth is we don't know the truth. And that vacuum of uncertainty can be manipulated into fear, which in turn makes us more suggestible and easier to control, or uncertainty can invoke a sense of mystery and awe into our lives, if we allow it.

Lets look at that for a moment, though.

Judging by comments you've made, your misunderstanding of Article 21 of the WHO came from other people manipulating you into both uncertainty and fear.

So do you apply your reasoning offered here to your own personal narrative....that these people are trying to make you more suggestible and easier to control, ro serve their own agenda? Or perhaps they too are misled dupes...and that they too are being misled by suggestion, again by someone who's agenda is served by the spread of misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding these issues.

I'm not saying the Star is a bastion of integrity when it comes to reporting, but it reads like something lifted straight out of prisonplanet or David Icke's website,

Maybe the likes of prisonplanet and Icke are amongst the most successful conspiracy sites because they write headlines that look like something you'd expect to see in the likes of the Star...

and what i ask myself is why would a mainstream paper run a 'tinfoil hat' story in the first place.
...
Gonna read it again...

You've answered your own question right there, when you think about it....

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think it's just a personal narrative in the end, we all string along a story that makes sense to us, and i think we're all guilty to greater or lesser degrees of highlighting certain facts over others for the sake of coherency. The truth is we don't know the truth. And that vacuum of uncertainty can be manipulated into fear, which in turn makes us more suggestible and easier to control, or uncertainty can invoke a sense of mystery and awe into our lives, if we allow it. Life is truly a miraculous event, regardless...

And how do you know you have not been manipulated through fear by the websites and sources you've read?

Cause that really seems to be the case.
They don't offer any evidence for anything, just half truths and scaremongering. Which you seem to buy unquestioningly.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

That article in the Star, a mainstream paper running a front-page story that the government plans for mandatory vaccination is, well... it reads like a conspiracy; i mean, I'm not saying the Star is a bastion of integrity when it comes to reporting, but it reads like something lifted straight out of prisonplanet or David Icke's website, and what i ask myself is why would a mainstream paper run a 'tinfoil hat' story in the first place. Is it all pure scaremongering, sensationalism perhaps, is there some truth to it?

Gonna read it again...

It is all pure scaremongering and sensationalism.
There is absolutely no evidence it's true.

But what about all the mainstream media outlets who say the opposite to the star?
Why not believe there is "some truth" to them?

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Jeezus, i honestly don't remember writing that post! I remember watching the match, the pub and then ... those last whiskies, that was it.. anyway, forgive me if it upset you, looking now with more sober eyes I think what I wanted to say, or at least my point is that using forced medication of fluoride as a basis,

But as I said a lot of times now, it's silly to compare fluoridation and vaccines.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think it's perhaps naive to believe the government hasn't at least thought about mandatory vaccination too.

Wow, just to recap you've backtracked from "alot of governments are about to adopt mandatory vaccinations and give control to the WHO" to "they thought about mandatory vaccinations".

So have you any evidence that mandatory vaccinations where considered in any official capacity as a viable option?
Or is this more baseless speculation?

IrelandSpirit

I think some people here are so used to just attacking anything I say that you're blinded to the fact I'm beginning to agree with you! In so far as the media scaremongering, it has proved thus far to be just that, and my stance is beginning to shift - but I don't think it's silly to compare mandatory fluoridation with vaccines on a thread about mandatory vaccination. Both are medicines. Regardless of whether you think they are good for us or not, the issue here is forced medication - freedom of choice. For years our government continues to deny our freedom of choice over a medication, it seems logical to me that they could do it with vaccines.

I did misunderstand how articles 21 and 22 relate to each other, but having gained what appears to be the correct interpretation, it boils down to whether or not this flu virus becomes more virulent, and whether or not the WHO recommends mandatory vaccination, and whether or not our government objects to it.

Going by the fact our government is quite content with the idea of mandatory medication (fluoride), I would imagine they would raise no objection to the idea of mandatory vaccination either.

Having said that, I think there is quite a way to go before we reach that stage.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

the issue here is forced medication - freedom of choice.

<mod hat on>

I think you'll find thats an issue for Politics or perhaps the Health Sciences forum.

The issue here is conspiracy.

Unless you're suggesting that there is (or might be) a conspiracy to deny us freedom of choice regarding vaccination, then its a point thats irrelevant to this forum, regardless of its merit.

Given that your argument doesn't appear to be about such a conspiracy, then no, its not the issue here.

<mod hat off>

For years our government continues to deny our freedom of choice over a medication, it seems logical to me that they could do it with vaccines.

For years, our government continues to to support our freedom of choice on the vast, vast majority of medical issues, including all vaccination issues.

If you want to talk about logic, you need to explain how your select case is a more relevant example then, say, the entire history of vaccination in Ireland, or indeed every other medical issue where we have freedom of choice.

Why is one select example suddenly an indicator that there might be a conspiracy to do it on another select example? And why this select case? Why not some non-headline-grabbing issue?

I did misunderstand how articles 21 and 22 relate to each other, but having gained what appears to be the correct interpretation, it boils down to whether or not this flu virus becomes more virulent, and whether or not the WHO recommends mandatory vaccination, and whether or not our government objects to it.

If we move the goalposts, yes. If we look at what we were actually discussing, then I think we all agree that the WHO cannot mandate vaccination...which was the fear raised.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

In so far as the media scaremongering, it has proved thus far to be just that, and my stance is beginning to shift -

And by media do you mean the crackpot anti vaccine websites?
Then yes they are scaremongering, a lot.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

but I don't think it's silly to compare mandatory fluoridation with vaccines on a thread about mandatory vaccination. Both are medicines.

One is a evasive medicine that requires you to go to the doctors to recieve it, has some minor side effect, and in rare cases can't be given to some people.
The other is a chemical the add (and in some places take out) to the water who's only side effect is healthier teeth (despite what the crackpots tell you) and can be administered to everyone.

To run a mandatory vaccination campaigne you have to spend millions to supply the vaccines, pay the doctors, advertising legal defence against people trying to stop it. Then you have to deal with the huge and unnecessary burden on hospitals and doctor's offices, protests, and so on.

To run a fluoridation program you simply add a small step in your water treatment process. That's it.
Then you save millions on dental health.

You can't compare the two.
It's silly to do so.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Regardless of whether you think they are good for us or not, the issue here is forced medication - freedom of choice.

No the issue was that the Irish government were going to jail people who refuse to get the vaccine.
But you've moved the goalposts so much now it's hard to tell.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

For years our government continues to deny our freedom of choice over a medication, it seems logical to me that they could do it with vaccines.

You get fined for buying bottled water now?
"
And can you provide a single example where they've denied us "our freedom of choice over a medication" besides your rhetoric about fluoridation?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I did misunderstand how articles 21 and 22 relate to each other, but having gained what appears to be the correct interpretation, it boils down to whether or not this flu virus becomes more virulent, and whether or not the WHO recommends mandatory vaccination, and whether or not our government objects to it.

Very very different from what you were claiming.
But what leads you to believe that the WHO will ever recommend mandatory vaccination in the first place?
Have they ever once done so before?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Going by the fact our government is quite content with the idea of mandatory medication (fluoride), I would imagine they would raise no objection to the idea of mandatory vaccination either.

As bonkey said
That's one example out of an entire history free of mandatory vaccinations.
So if we go by the fact our government is quite content with the idea of not using mandatory vaccinations, I would imagine that it's very unlikely that they ever will.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Having said that, I think there is quite a way to go before we reach that stage.

Again very different to what you were saying.
Why is this?

IrelandSpirit

ok, ok Bonkey, point taken. There doesn't appear to be a mandatory vaccination program planned for Ireland at present. At least we've found no evidence for it. It's conjecture too whether or not this virus becomes more virulent, in regards perhaps providing the government with some kind of rational for it. I know a lot of people who've had swine flu, (i'm sure we all do) and for most it was quite mild. We might have had it ourselves and not known... there was a flu going around in the summer which I got - that was pretty bad, it lasted for weeks on end, but my understanding is that a flu virus tends to become less virulant as time goes on.

So the question I've still to find an answer for is why the government and media frenzy about this virus in particular, and this vaccine in particular?

IrelandSpirit

King Mod, you're kinda echoing what I said yesterday (and on previous posts), that there would be huge resistance to any forced vaccination program here. There is no rational for it. I'm not moving the goal posts, you seem to be under the impression that this discussion is about winners and losers. I'm primarily here to learn, and as I do my ideas change and evolve, and yes I will admit that I will play devil's advocate to that end too.

Now, forgive me for going off topic for a second, but I just need to answer this and make my position clear: Spiking our water supply with a chemical (banned in most other EU member states) is unlawful and unethical - call me a crackpot all you like but I will never back down on that. Interesting choice of words though, 'who's only side effect is healthier teeth' - I thought healthier teeth was supposed to be the primary effect, not the the secondary.

In any case, you can't just continuously call everybody a crackpot who doesn't agree with your point of view. You only come across as arrogant, and bit of a crackpot yourslelf doing that.

Ok, why the government and media frenzy about this virus in particular, and this vaccine in particular? Deaths occur every year from seasonal flu, something that was hardly given a mention until now, with this swine flu.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

King Mod, you're kinda echoing what I said yesterday (and on previous posts), that there would be huge resistance to any forced vaccination program here. There is no rational for it.

I'm pretty sure yesterday you were claiming the WHO could force any member to have mandatory vaccinations.
And before that you were claim that mandatory vaccination were about to be implemented.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I'm not moving the goal posts, you seem to be under the impression that this discussion is about winners and losers. I'm primarily here to learn, and as I do my ideas change and evolve, and yes I will admit that I will play devil's advocate to that end too.

No you're moving the goalposts.
You've constantly changed what you are claiming when your claims don't hold up to scrutiny.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Now, forgive me for going off topic for a second, but I just need to answer this and make my position clear: Spiking our water supply with a chemical (banned in most other EU member states) is unlawful and unethical - call me a crackpot all you like but I will never back down on that. Interesting choice of words though, 'who's only side effect is healthier teeth' - I thought healthier teeth was supposed to be the primary effect, not the the secondary.

Actually shows me point exactly, you're just buying this antiscience stuff wholesale.
Fluoridation isn't banned anywhere. In most of the EU they fluoride their salt.
This is a total myth spread by crackpots.
Edit: Oops. It was illegal in Sweden for a bit. Now they just don't do it.

Now given the fact that all the claims you've parroted in this and other threads have been shown to be false, maybe you should start looking a bit more critically into claims like this that you read on those websites.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

In any case, you can't just continuously call everybody a crackpot who doesn't agree with your point of view. You only come across as arrogant, and bit of a crackpot yourslelf doing that.

No i'm calling the crackpots because they are claiming thing for which there is no evidence in support and often evidence against it.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ok, why the government and media frenzy about this virus in particular, and this vaccine in particular? Deaths occur every year from seasonal flu, something that was hardly given a mention until now, with this swine flu.

1. the media is in a "frenzy" because sensationalism sells.
2. the government is in a "frenzy" because they weren't prepared for this strain of the flu like they are for the seasonal flu. I'd guarantee if the government weren't doing what they were doing, you'd have people claiming they aren't doing enough. And worse you'd get people making up the CT that the government is planning to let us die for the flu.

The only people who actually seem to be in any kind of frenzy are the anti vax and anti science crowd.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob, I began thinking that some kind of mandatory vaccination could be implemented here in Ireland. Then, as time moved on and my knowledge increased, I began thinking that perhaps mandatory vaccination won't be implemented here in Ireland. I can't see why you have a problem with this. When I don't agree with your views, you seem to resent the fact, and yet equally resent the fact when I do agree with you?

My views will no doubt continue to change, I try to keep an open mind, and thing is that believe it or not but i do take on what you say, and for the large part respect your views when you're not ranting about everybody else being crackpots.

A lot of things still just don't add up about this swine flu, but just to take your two points:

1. the media is in a "frenzy" because sensationalism sells.

Agreed, but if that's the case, then why don't they go on a frenzy every year over the seasonal flu?

2. the government is in a "frenzy" because they weren't prepared for this strain of the flu like they are for the seasonal flu.

Again, if that were true, why not? They seem prepared for the other types of flu, what's so special about this one? Millions of people get get flu every year over the entire planet, thousands die and it's a fact of life, so what's so special about this particular flu over the others that the WHO declares a level 6 pandemic?

Is the mortality rate higher? No, in fact the symptoms seem milder than the seasonal flu, and yet no level 6 pandemic, no media frenzy to get vaccinated until swine flu hits the scene. Why?

It's hardly surprising that many people find the entire issue suspicious - it is blown out of proportion, and because of that, I can totally understand why people would entertain the CT that mandatory vaccination could happen too - it goes with the fearmongering tone the media/government are propagating, if nothing else.