+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies (/showthread.php?tid=14737)
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - missydog1 - 10-04-2014
Rob, the bill itself might be moot to you, but surely not to everyone.
Yes, it contained the word flu, and certain powers had been triggered that year, 2009, by declaration of the pandemic threat, which was flu-- SARS outbreak --2009 H1N1 influenza.
quote:The issue at the time of the resolution was that our normal right of choice to get a flu shot or not was about to get revoked.
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared aquote:Ó and according to the International Health Regulations of 2005, the WHO and the U.N. become the controlling agencies of the U.S. in the event of a declared Level 6 Pandemic; and
Level 6 Òpandemic
WHEREAS, the $7 billion United States Government `fast-track programÕ means that the government can legally rush vaccines onto the market in time for the autumn 2009 flu season without ÒnormalÓ or adequate safety te
The wording in the resolution is specifically about allowing people to claim "exemption" from forced vaccination with quarantine as the alternative. This has nothing to do with helping parents avoid vaccinating their children against polio or measles. They already have the same exemption rights that were being called for in the resolution. Also, the vaccines for those diseases don't get completely reworked every year (as far as I know), and they have gone through testing and approval.
This resolution was about our right to resist being shot up with rushed and untested vaccine against flu, which was really about to happen if H1N1/swine flu had shown a real presence in Hawai'i.
IIRC, the outcome of the pandemic warning was that the flu turned out to be milder than thought and not the kind that produces widespread fatalities, so the panic died down. Others here may remember it more clearly.
Kathy
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - kalakoa - 10-04-2014
our right to resist being shot up with rushed and untested vaccine against flu
Isn't the current ebola vaccine considered "experimental"?
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - missydog1 - 10-04-2014
Here's a 2009 white paper by the ACLU on the subject of the pandemic and vaccinations for the H1N1 and the accompanying civil liberties concerns.
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/H1N1_Report_FINAL.pdf
quote:pg 10 onwards talks about civil liberties concerns, and here is the conclusion:
2. Government Responses to H1N1
When the H1N1 flu broke, there was considerable concern in both the civil liberties and public health communities that overreactions on the part of the federal and state governments would result in serious infringements on civil liberties and panicked, less- than-effective public health strategies.
Many state emergency flu preparedness plans currently on the books were modeled after the ÒModel State Emergency Health Powers ActÓ that was drafted at the request of the Bush AdministrationÕs CDC following the anthrax letter scare in 2001. Designed to address a Òworst caseÓ scenario, the Model Act provided state officials with extensive, unchecked powers to curtail individual autonomy and privacy in the face of an emergency, including powers to surveil the publicÕs health and to compel vaccination, testing, treatment, isolation, and quarantine.
The Model Act lacked checks and balances and privacy protections while it emphasized an ineffective, coercive approach to pandemic response rather than a public health response.22 Some states also amended their pandemic planning laws in response to the 2005 H5N1 avian flu scare, again adopting highly draconian measures that are inappropriate for the vast majority of flu situations.
quote:I don't consider the ACLU to be a crackpot organization or a fringe group. The ACLU at the time called for "a conversation" on the balance between public health and civil liberties.
Conclusion
History has shown that too often, fear about the spread of a communicable disease has resulted in panicked responses on the part of the government and unnecessary restrictions on individual rights and autonomy. Currently, levels of public fear are not so high as to allow for such overreactions.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that the nation engage now in conversation about appropriate responses to the current outbreak so that civil liberties concerns are considered part of Ð and not contrary to -- a public health mitigation effort.
Safeguarding privacy and liberty in the face of a pandemic is crucial for maintaining public trust in public health authorities and encouraging public cooperation in efforts to mitigate disease. Coercive measures such as quarantine, travel bans, and forced vaccination and treatment clearly are not warranted for the current H1N1 flu situation, and should be imposed only in the most severe of cases and where there is a sound scientific and constitutional basis for doing so.
The resolution passed by the County Council was addressing a very current and present civil liberties issue. As the ACLU points out, government may be prone to panic and rushed judgment in times of pandemic (which is not to say panic is always unwarranted). The citizens' level of trust in government decisions about disease control might reasonably be lower than at normal times. Should our civil liberties be suspended? That was the context of this legislation. Emotions were high on both sides.
I don't feel like it was crazy or weird to have the conversation here on this island. If you read the paper on that link you will see it was not a marginal position to have grave concerns.
Kathy
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - Rob Tucker - 10-05-2014
Gee Kathy, you sure can wrap a lot of verbage around something. I was there at the time. Sativa was pressing her hysterical handouts into my hand. Please don't try to redefine what took place then on some narrow grounds. When the ignorant join hands with the stupid and are lead by the manipulative, people can and do die. Perhaps start another topic on how civil liberties in Hawaii might be affected by the Ebola virus.
None of what you wrote obscures my simple question to R.J. & Sativa:
Will R.J. and Sativa give a yes or no answer as to whether or not they were participating in any manner in a multi-level marketing program for Oxysilver - Len Horowitz' alternative to vaccinations?
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - missydog1 - 10-05-2014
Rob, no need to get all aggravated. I see your question, and I'm not answering it or addressing it because I'm not RJ or Sativa.
TomK started the topic and he framed it as a question about anti-vaccination "policy." He didn't mention that Oxy-Silver was the only thing he wanted to hear about. He didn't mention it at all. I responded with some history on the "policy" in 2009. I'm not redefining what was going on in this country at that time. I'm adding context. Most of the verbiage is quotes pulled out of the ACLU published paper so people can see why I linked it.
If Sativa had an additional personal project relating to childhood immunization, then maybe you could explain what you saw so that someone who wasn't there (which is a lot of people on this forum) will really understand it?
Whatever her private crusade may have been, which I fully agree I do not know and am not trying to say I do, the public "policy" result was what I shared above from the Council Meeting where it was passed by a good majority of the Council, and it was about the 2009 flu pandemic.
Whatever Sativa may have said to people on the street, she has free speech rights and she was not employed by the County! And I'm fairly sure even County employees have free speech rights when they're not on the clock.
Btw, Sen. Russell Ruderman sells silver products touted to have amazing healing and preventative virtues in his stores, and I don't see you flipping out about that.
Don't get me wrong, I think Horowitz is a shyster. From what little Sativa has told me, or RJ, they think so too. But it's up to them to give you a reply to your specific question if they so choose. My post was directed to Tom's opening to the topic.
Kathy
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - Rob Tucker - 10-05-2014
I spoke to a couple council members after the resolution passed. Both told me that the whole thing was a "roll your eyes" moment.... one of many provided by Emily and her staff. The easiest way to get it off the table was to pass it seeing how it had no force of law. I thought that was a big mistake as it put wind in the sails of the anti-vaccination crowd.
Don't mistake Sativa and R.J. as separate entities on this. They have been operating in unison for many years and promoted themselves as Emily's L.A. on a two for one basis.
Personally I think the whole topic of forced quarantine is very timely in this moment of Ebola virus. It should be a new topic and not mixed with the anti-vaccination BS from a few years ago. On the news I see no evidence of a constituency for releasing those exposed to Ebola in Dallas from forced quarantine. Since there was a report of exposure in Honolulu the other day (false), where oh where is the ACLU, not to mention our champions R.J. & Sativa on this? This is not theory. This is a today reality.
But I will continue to ask:
Will R.J. and Sativa give a yes or no answer as to whether or not they were participating in any manner in a multi-level marketing program for Oxysilver - Len Horowitz' alternative to vaccinations?
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - hikatz - 10-05-2014
From what I have read about RJ and Sativa, they do not strike me that they would get involved in anything just for profit. They would have to believe in the cause they were fighting for.
It is also obvious without enough ISLAND WIDE support for this bill, the Mandatory Vaccine Resolution 237-9 would not have passed by 7-1 vote!
Does anyone really believe Emily Naeole, could have that much influence on the council?
http://www.politicolnews.com/hawaii-outlaws-forced-vaccines/
Usually the reason anyone signs up for any MLM marketing program, is they passionately believe in the product! Been there done that, like many others I know.
Unless one is very dedicated, very few people make money in MLM so I have my doubts RJ and Sativa, if they were involved with Oxysilver, got rich!!!
Nothing I have read here has changed my mind. I still think this is to detract from the Big Island Circus topic and discredit their opinions on any topic!
I hope that RJ Hampton and Sativa do not respond to this post or questions!
Off topic, one of my Vet's recommends Oxysilver, and sells Kyani Sunset for treating infections in pets!
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - TomK - 10-05-2014
Hikatz,
"I still think this is to detract from the Big Island Circus topic and discredit their opinions on any topic!"
I have no interest in the Big Island Circus discussion. You can believe what you want but that was not my motivation for starting this topic.
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 10-06-2014
I don't think it's an invasion of privacy to ask someone what they do for a living, or what jobs they've held in the past. If most of us were at a party, and someone were to ask "what do you do?" we'd tell them. Teacher, astrophysicist, insurance agent, police officer, it keeps the conversation moving.
Now, maybe what you do is private, or you're an agent for the FBI. But I've even talked with an FBI agent at air cargo about what he did on the job, without much hesitation on his part.
If you lead a crusade against someone for their alleged illegal activities, even Jesus suggested a few thousand years ago that it's not completely unwarranted to ask about the accuser's integrity:
"let those without sin cast the first stone."
RE: Hawaii Island anti-vaccination policies - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 10-06-2014
George Washington, the First Vaxxer
The commander of the Continental Army realized that if he did not inoculate his army against smallpox (deemed illegal by the Continental Congress and colonial legislatures), he might not have an army. Saving his men, he probably saved his country.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/05/george-washington-the-first-vaxxer.html