Page 86 - Bioterrorism

85

(1) It fails to include basic checks and balances (by) grant(ing) extraordinary emergency powers
(that) should never go unchecked. (It) could have serious consequences for individuals' freedom,
privacy, and equality."
(2) "It goes well beyond bioterrorism (with) an overbroad definition of 'public health emergency"
that may be anything a local or national authority declares for any reason with no conclusive
evidence for proof.
(3) "It lacks privacy protections (and) undercut(s) existing protections for sensitive medical
information."
MSEHPA worries other organizations besides the ACLU, both conservative and progressive -
including the Free Congress Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, conservative
association of state legislators, Human Rights Campaign, and Health Privacy Project.
The Real Threat of Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations
In the wake of the hyped Swine Flu scare, media reports suggest mass vaccinations are coming.
The May 6 Kimberly Kindy - Ceci Connolly Washington Post one, for example, headlined "US
May Add Shots for Swine Flu to Fall Regimen" without saying they'll be mandatory but reading
between the lines suggests the possibility this year or later.

Any Federal or State laws that allow the government under any authority, including a presidential
executive order, to compel the people of United States of America to take a vaccination for which
there is verifiable scientific evidence for believing could be very dangerous to them, both
individually and collectively, and which, also includes provisions, barring them from claiming any
compensation for any injury or death while enforcing punishments so severe for refusing that it
could cost people lives or result in imprisonment, are in violation of the Preamble, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Laws of the land.

To accept the legal framework of the Patriot Act 1, and 2, The Model State Emergency Health
Powers Act, the NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20 is to accept that the legal
rights of the US citizen today in 2009 are no different from the prisoners of the Nazi German
concentration camps when it comes to their right to refuse an unproven vaccine forced on them by
agents claiming the authority of an official office that was, however, also outside the scope of the
duties and offices mandated by the German Constitution.

The prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps had no right under law to refuse a vaccine or
experimental drug just as the US citizens today have no right to refuse an unproven pandemic
vaccine today. Any refusal to allow a vaccination by Nazi concentration camp inmates was met
with severe punishment including shooting, beatings, and solitary confinement. And any refusal
by US citizens today will be met by the same severe punishment including shooting and
imprisonment because the government agents administrating the vaccines are authorised to use
these punishments against criminals, and those who refuse the vaccination are classified as
criminals.

Nazi concentration camp prisoners were barred from seeking compensation or any form of legal
redress for any injuries and damages done to them by forced vaccination – if they survived, at all,
and most did not. And the citizens of the United States of America are also to be barred from
seeking compensation or any form of legal redress for any harm, including death, inflicted on
them by the vaccinations.

The Nazi doctors who forced prisoners to take experimental substances -- under contract often
from pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer -- were condemned for their crimes by the US
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In response to this barbarism, a new code of medical ethics was
drawn up called the Nuremberg Code, which emphasises the importance of obtaining the
individual consent and also adequate information before any vaccination is administered or any
medical experiment performed.