Swine Flu-H1N1 few updates and links
Let’s start with this one~
Swine Flu Multiple-Shot Vaccine May Overwhelm States (Update3)
Two injections will be required three weeks apart for swine flu, also known as H1N1, and a third will be needed for seasonal flu, health officials said at a meeting today at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta. Children younger than 9 years old will need four shots, the CDC said.
The U.S. government took the unusual step of purchasing all of the swine flu vaccine, and the shots probably will be administered through vaccine clinics set up by state health organizations, the CDC said. The agency estimates that at least 50 million vaccine doses will be available in the U.S. by Oct. 15, and enough vaccine to immunize everyone in the country will be available later in the season.
“Public health departments are under-funded and will get fatigued,” said William Schaffner, an influenza expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview at the flu conference. “One shot probably gives you very little immunity, 10 to 20 percent at most.”
Two state health-agency representatives said today that vaccinations would be slowed if states are responsible for administering shots instead of doctors’ offices and pharmacies, said Jeanne Santoli, head of the CDC’s routine vaccine distribution activities.
continue for full
Then comes this~~
Soaring Death Rate in Buenos Aires Raises Pandemic Concerns
Recombinomics Commentary 18:03
June 27, 2009
“We’re seeing the placement of young patients, between 15 and 50 years with pneumonia, some rapidly evolving towards a gravity which for many is unusual, in which the lung is’ fire ‘in a matter of hours,” said Dr. Jorge San Juan, head of the Department of Intensive Care Hospital Muñiz.
==>The targeted population, as well as the description of the rapid deterioration sounds remarkably like reports on the 1918 pandemic.
Here you can follow the FluTracker, and read comments posted from around the world
H1N1 Interactive Map-Map data current as of 20:09 EDT 29 June
There are 2 graphs within this article~
Now, onto the subject of the GROWING CONCERNS of forced vaccinations, the following is a snip from legalities in the US, and do highly suggest you follow link to read additional info, as it gives coverage to:
==>>Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law
Given the changes in constitutional law, public health, and government regulation, what kinds of public health laws that address contagious diseases might be constitutionally permissible today? A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of “rationality review.” However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine. A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination to prevent dangerous contagious diseases in the absence of an epidemic, such as the school immunization requirement summarily upheld in 1922, also would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others.
The legitimacy of compulsory vaccination programs depends on both scientific factors and constitutional limits. Scientific factors include the prevalence, incidence, and severity of the contagious disease; the mode of transmission; the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine in preventing transmission; and the nature of any available treatment. Constitutional limits include protection against unjustified bodily intrusions, such as forcible vaccination of individuals at risk for adverse reactions, and physical restraints and unreasonable penalties for refusal.
Ordinarily, there would be no justification for compulsory vaccination against a disease like smallpox that does not exist in nature. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent attempt to persuade health care workers to voluntarily accept smallpox vaccination failed, largely because of concerns about the risks of vaccination in the absence of a credible threat of disease.120 Protecting the country against a terrorist’s introduction of smallpox would fall within federal jurisdiction over national security. The intentional introduction of smallpox also could be a crime under both federal and state law. Assuming that an FDA-approved vaccine were available, there would be little, if any, practical need for a mandatory vaccination law. People at risk would undoubtedly demand vaccine protection, just as they clamored for ciprofloxacin after the (non-contagious) anthrax attacks in 2001.121 The real problem in such cases is likely to be providing enough vaccine in a timely manner. The same may be true for a natural pandemic caused by new strains of influenza, for example. On the other hand, if a vaccine were investigational, compulsory vaccination would not be constitutional, and people would be less likely to accept it voluntarily.122,123
Likewise, a state statute that actually forced people to be vaccinated over their refusal, such as Florida’s new “public health emergency” law, would probably be an unconstitutional violation of the right to refuse treatment.124 In the case of Nancy Cruzan, the Court assumed, without having to decide, that competent adults have a constitutionally protected right to refuse any medical treatment, including artificially delivered care such as nutrition and hydration.102 Even the state’s legitimate interest in protecting life cannot outweigh a competent adult’s decision to refuse medical treatment.104,125 Today, a general interest in the public’s health or welfare could not justify sterilizing Carrie Buck against her will. Since Griswold v Connecticut, the Court has repeatedly struck down state laws that interfere with personal reproductive decisions. All competent adults have the right to refuse surgical sterilization. The Court also said that people who cannot make decisions for themselves because they are legally incompetent are entitled to have their wishes respected and carried out.102 If their personal wishes are unknown, they must be treated in accordance with their own best interests, not the interests of the state.
Such cases underscore an important difference between laws that are intended to prevent a person from harming other people, which can be a justified exercise of police power, and laws that are intended to protect only the health of the individual herself, which are unjustified violations of liberty. A committee appointed by the British government is reportedly considering a proposal to vaccinate children with vaccines that block the highs produced by cocaine, heroin, and nicotine.126,127 Which category might this proposal fit? Drug addiction is a public health problem128 but not a contagious disease. It is unlikely that the possibility of a person becoming addicted to drugs in the future would be sufficient to warrant compulsory vaccination, even if it is assumed that the vaccine would not affect ordinary intellectual or emotional function. The modern public health approach would be to provide education about drug abuse or to offer safe and effective medications in a voluntary treatment program.
Even in an emergency, when there is a rapidly spreading contagious disease and an effective vaccine, the state is not permitted to forcibly vaccinate or medicate anyone. The constitutional alternative is to segregate infected and exposed people separately to prevent them from transmitting the disease to others. Here again, modern constitutional law demands a high level of justification. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “involuntary confinement of an individual for any reason, is a deprivation of liberty which the State cannot accomplish without due process of law,”98 and some justices have called freedom from such confinement fundamental in nature.83 While it has not decided a case that involved isolation or quarantine for disease, it has held that civil commitment for mental illness is unconstitutional unless a judge determines the person is dangerous by reason of a mental illness.83,98 Assuming, as most scholars do, that the law governing commitment to a mental institution also applies to involuntary confinement for contagious diseases, the government would have the burden of proving, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that the individual actually has, or has been exposed to, a contagious disease and is likely to transmit the disease to others if not confined.129,130
When the HIV epidemic began in 1981, these principles from the 1970s reminded legislators at both the state and federal levels that people could not be involuntarily detained simply because they had HIV infection.131 Only a few individuals who imminently threatened to infect other people by deliberate or uncontrollable behavior would meet the constitutional test. More recently, the same approach has been used by lower courts in some cases that involved people who had active, contagious tuberculosis.132,133 Involuntary commitment has been used for a small number of people who were unable to avoid contact with others, typically because of mental illness, substance abuse, or homelessness.134–137 In practice, people who can stay in their own homes and have access to adequate care are virtually never subjected to involuntary commitment. They do not need to be committed for effective public health protection. The need for coercive measures like compulsory isolation can be seen as evidence of a failure to provide the public health programs that could have prevented or treated disease.138–140 For example, the rise of tuberculosis in New York City during the 1980s, and the city’s increased use of involuntary isolation for people who had untreated tuberculosis, owes more to the collapse of the city’s treatment programs than to the value of involuntary commitment.141,142
Today, involuntary isolation and quarantine should be needed and used only in extremely rare cases. The most likely is where a new airborne infectious disease, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), for which no treatment yet exists, enters the country. Yet, even with the SARS epidemic, there proved to be almost no need to compel isolation, and quarantine was almost exclusively done in the individual’s home.143,144 After all, laws that compel detention necessarily apply to the exceptional person, just as Henning Jacobson was in 1905. Most people were eager to take precautionary measures voluntarily. In Beijing, China, however, where the government was rumored to be planning a large-scale quarantine, almost 250 000 people fled, which increased the risk of spreading the disease. Indeed, historically, large-scale quarantines have had little positive effect on epidemics.145
As a practical matter, major new epidemics or terrorist attacks are likely to be considered national emergencies. In such circumstances, overreactions are likely and constitutional rights may be trampled, regardless of established law, which is what happened when the military forced Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during World War II. In 1944, Fred Korematsu’s detention in such a camp was upheld by the US Supreme Court in a decision that has been regretted ever since.146 In an amicus curiae brief in the cases against the Bush Administration by individuals detained without charges at Guantánamo Bay in connection with the “war on terror,” Korematsu reminded the Supreme Court:
History teaches that, in time of war, we have often sacrificed fundamental freedoms unnecessarily. The Executive and Legislative Branches, reflecting public opinion formed in the heat of the moment, frequently have overestimated the need to restrict civil liberties and failed to consider alternative ways to protect the national security.147
Protect Us From Compulsory Vaccination, Drugging
Last here….From this link Videos are available~~Check out “PIG IN A POKE”
#
Vaccines are POISON. The only one[s] who benefit from vaccines are PHARMACEUTICALS. Lots of Vitamin D will protect you from the flu and many other diseases. DON’T be fooled by paid off media hype. STOP the sickening assault on humanity.