[PAA-Discuss] Capitalism: A Love Story .....openingatAngelicaThursday night

[Ron and Kris Graham]

With Big Pharma it's always about the money. Perhaps this virus was set
loose so that a few big pharmaceutical companies could get bloody rich[er].
I just don't know what to think, Robert. EVERYTHING the government and
corporate do reeks. My brother, who is studying to be a nurse, is in first
stage clinicals right now. He has to do his internship at various hospitals.
He said he's going to have to take the "swine" flu vaccine when it becomes
available. I don't want him to, but I bet he will. He won't risk flunking
out of nursing school for refusing the vaccine. He's already had to have
umpteen different vaccinations just to be able to work around all those sick
people.

 

Kris

 

  _____  

From: robert [mailto:gram.graham at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:02 PM
To: graham2639 at mindspring.com; 'Lee Loe'; 'PAA discussion'
Subject: RE: [PAA-Discuss] Capitalism: A Love Story
.....openingatAngelicaThursday night

 

MANDATORY VACCINATION IN NY

  

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. Health workers in New York State must take the Swine Flu
vaccine. That's a new regulation. Take the vaccine or get fired. 

But several thousand of those health workers are staging a protest in
Albany, and surveys have indicated that many more will refuse the shot.
During an ordinary flu season, between 40 and 50 percent of NY health
workers decline the vaccine. 

Why? They don't think it's necessary, and they worry about the dangers of
the vaccine. This time around, they're particularly worried, because the
federal government has barred any lawsuits against Swine Flu vaccine
manufacturers, in the event of serious adverse effects. 

Why would the feds make such an exemption for these pharmaceutical
companies? 

Let's say you bought a new car, and as you were driving down the freeway,
the wheels fell off and you crashed into a barrier and sustained major
injuries. Would the auto manufacturer deserve to wriggle off the hook? 

Common sense tells us that, when the government guarantees vaccine makers a
clear profit with no risks, something is very wrong. Adverse effects, like
nervous system damage, are expected. 

Would you sign a contract to buy a new car, if at the last minute, the oily
salesman remarked, "Of course, you know, if the engine drops on the ground,
you can't sue anybody." 

To examine the "logic" behind this no-risk regulation for vaccine
manufacturers, read the following quote from Dr. Tadataka Yamada, who works
at the Gates Foundation. The doctor states he owns stock in GSK, one of the
firms making Swine Flu vaccine. His remarks were published in the New
England Journal of Medicine on August 20. 

"The generous donations [of vaccine] made by Sanofi-Aventis and
GlaxoSmithKline set an example that all manufacturers should emulate. In
return for their responsible actions, it would be reasonable for
manufacturers to be indemnified against liability from potential adverse
reactions to their vaccines." 

What? 

Yamada is saying: Well, these companies are good guys, so let's not punish
them if they make a destructive vaccine. It's quid pro quo. They help us, we
help them. It's only fair. They're doing their best. Why should we punish
them? 

Somehow, there is a connection between generosity---giving away
vaccines---and zero accountability for making a destructive product. Sorry,
it doesn't wash. 

If a corn farmer who brings five million ears of corn to market every year
also gives away 10,000 ears of corn to the poor, but much of his corn is
poisoned or filled with dangerous mold, he should be protected from
lawsuits? 

And on top of that, everybody HAS TO eat the corn or face loss of their
jobs? 
Mainstream reporters and their editors should be having a field day with
government-mandated no-risk for vaccine manufacturers. This should be a
scandal of huge proportions. But of course, that's not the case. 

Not in this climate of fear about Swine Flu. It reminds me of the rush to
judgment of federal legislators and the press, after 9/11. "If the president
wants to attack Iraq, we have to go along. Who cares whether Saddam had
anything to do with 9/11. We can't 'back down.'" 

If our legal system were functioning properly, it would be impossible to
cancel risk for maiming or killing citizens, while at the same time ordering
people to accept the medical treatment that carries that risk. A New York
court would strike down the regulation that demands health workers take the
Swine Flu vaccine. 

The few drug companies who can deliver hundreds of millions of vaccinations
know what they're doing. They're leveraging their position. The companies
are getting the real immunity. From prosecution. From judgments. 

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com.

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2409 - Release Date: 10/02/09
06:46:00


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20091002/a26c3138/attachment.htm>