Vaccination Resolution

[TomK]

Paul - the problem is I don't think this has had zero effect. It might be a meaningless resolution but it seems to have stirred up a lot of people here in Puna who lack a bit of critical thinking. I don't wish to be unkind to what might be a rather large subset of the Puna population but they are being mislead.

Frankly, Greg (and Dave Smith) hit the nail on the head with his comment about late night AM radio and people being sucked into the nonsense that programmes like Coast to Coast want to propagate. It's interesting to see that since those posts there has no justification of the resolution.

BTW, I actually enjoy Coast to Coast! It's all a load of tosh but it is entertaining, especially on those long nights alone at the summit...

Tom

[kjlpahoa]

Thank you for all the information in this posting. It provided good back ground information. My one and only intent, in my first posting, was to comment on the political process and Emily's desire to speak up for her District. I really muffed it by using that resolution not knowing how contraversial it really is/was. I should have used another subject matter. For the record, I am not for or against vaccinations. Both sides of the spectrum have legitimate position statements. I am purely for freedom of choice, hoping that the choice is based on rational thinking. I am new to the local political scene and have quickly learned that it is often an irrational process from the begining to the end. And it is not limited just to the County level. I am sorry to have opened up the can of worms, especially since I am not a connoisseur of worms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Orts

Kjlpahoa,
Let's put aside the issue of who is writing what and if vaccines are or are not safe. Let's get down to the core issue of the resolution introduction.

The citizens are rightfully questioning the rational of this resolution. It was badly researched and flawed for the get go. It showed a complete lack of understanding of the laws and begs the question; what idiot researched and wrote the Resolution?

The main point in the resolution relating to Hawaii was mention of HRS 302A-1157 as a forced vaccination of the people. Unfortunately, whoever researched the Resolution botched that item. The referenced HRS section does not imply any forced vaccination or quarantine of the people. It is about SCHOOLS and the right of the government to require vaccinations against a disease when a certain emergency exist as a condition of children to attend public schools. Nowhere in that section of HRS does it impose any requirement on the public at large. So by referencing it, the author was attempting to take a very specific set of circumstances on a very limited population and apply it to all citizens of the County. That is fear mongering in the worst way.
Can you explain that?

Second, the quarantine that section referenced was not a quarantine of those who were not vaccinated, but a quarantine of those who were vaccinated from those that were not. In essence, the schools are required when a health emergency exist, to quarantine those who are vaccinated by limiting access to schools from those who were not vaccinated. If a child is not vaccinated, they can't enter the school. They are not forced to get vaccinated, only are barred from mingling in the school with those who are vaccinated. Again, the author of the resolution falsely implied that someone was being forced to be quarantine for not getting vaccinated when in fact it was those who were vaccinated who were quarantined while in school from those who were not.
Care to explain that?

Lastly, the resolution references SB-781 & HB 671. Those two were enacted after a review revealed that under Hawaii law, only the health department agents could impose a forced quarantine on a citizen. So if a person was identified with a deadly contagious illness, unless the health departments agents was there to take action, nobody else had the right to force a person into a quarantine. Imagine someone opening their mail and finding anthrax inside, nobody but a health department agent could stop that person from taking the bus, going to the supermarket, or walking into a crowded assembly. The Police did not have that authority under Hawaii law. The bills simple gave the police the authority when instructed by the health department. But the author of the resolution made an attempt to distort the truth by making it sound like the Police could act on their own.
Care to explain that?

The whole issue of the resolution was that it was based on a whole bunch of distortions, mistruths, and bogus facts. That is what everyone is talking about. The author of the resolution made an issue that did and does not exist. By the Councilperson introducing it with all the faults and flaws, it indicated an almost laughable stupidity on her part. That's the issue she’s being called on the carpet about.
Can you explain why she shouldn’t be laughed out of office?

---

[kjlpahoa]

Is anybody interested in the 10 grand. You might try googling www.content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/25/2414 This just might be the ticket home

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeE

Saw this today.

Here's an easy ten grand, I guess.

I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...). To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I'll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!"

---

[Heidi Baker]

kjl,

Not able to open link. Apparently no such site.

I too am for freedom of choice, the beauty of being an American. But from the first moment I read this resolution, I asked my husband, Emily's opponent for the seat this Novemeber, since when do the police barge into my house at 2:00 AM, hold me down, and force a needle into my arm?

When that becomes commonplace, then I'll listen to these types of resolutions.

Heidi Baker

[Rob Tucker]

kjlpahoa,

You really should not feel the need to apologize for opening this can of worms as you say unless the anti vaccination resolution was your idea.

Puna has a lot of needs and evidence is that the district has been shortchanged by Hilo for decades. We need representation on council which can reverse this history not continue it. Resolutions might have the look and feel of things getting done but at the end of the day they accomplish nothing.

I would still like for someone more knowledgeable than I to bring forth a list of Emily Naeole-Beason's accomplishments over the last three years. Things that she has taken the initiative on and brought to some level of completion or eminent completion.

Many of us are convinced that Emily could be a much more effective council member if she had competent staff. Her record and her staff are likely to be issues in this year's election.

[mdd7000]

http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H1N1_v...afety.html

That is the site kjlpahoa was trying to reference.

kjlpahoa:
Of course no one will win the $10,000. Have you actually READ the criteria that he says must be met in order to win it? Did you subscribe and read the entire article? It CANNOT BE WON by that criteria. Look at the time frames that are referenced?
It is a phony reward written in such a manner as to incite those people who live in fear and paranoia and have no concept of medicine and science.

I could write a similar statement about the polio vaccine and no one could win that either.

[PaulW]

"For the record, I am not for or against vaccinations"
and then you bring up this ridiculous 10 grand thing?
Which, as mdd7000 said, can't be won by anybody as you have to organize a trial with at least 1000 patients lasting 90 days. It was announced in late January and the offer ends in late March, ie about 60 days later. Plus a lot of other restrictions.

Maybe I should make some "Vote ABE" signs, with a profile of Abraham Lincoln. The fine print will reveal that ABE = Anyone But Emily. Our democratic system makes it possible that even someone like Emily can be elected, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if she isn't able to pick good advisors then sorry, but she has to go.

Alternatively, how about Emily for Congress? She can do less damage there.