Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

by **scollon** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:46 pm

NoMoreFakeNews.com 12-27-5 Well, the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2006 has now been passed by both houses of Congress. Bill Frist, at the last minute, inserted language that gives vast protections to drug companies and the US government itself. Piecing various reports together (the major media have been almost completely silent), here is the situation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services---a cabinet post under the president---can declare a medical emergency on any pretext, for any reason. This declaration would be an alert. There is a serious disease outbreak that threatens the US. Or---such an outbreak may be coming soon. The outbreak could be labeled epidemic or pandemic or just outbreak. Or actual or impending or potential bio terror attack. Once the Secretary of HHS makes his declaration, certain rules apply. ANY countermeasure to such a threat (a drug, a vaccine) would be protected from legal liability. In other words, if people are injured by the medications or killed, no one can sue. No one can sue the drug manufacturers or the government. We're talking about a shield for old or new drugs or vaccines. Suppose, for example, there are 10 drugs the government decides constitute countermeasures to threat A: aspirin, smallpox vaccine, doxicillin... All protected. All companies protected. The only exception: if a drug company is proven to have injured people WITH INTENT. This means assault or murder. Try showing that in a courtroom. Tomorrow, the Sec. of HHS could say: AVIAN FLU REPRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. THEREFORE, I AM DECLARING A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. THE FOLLOWING DRUGS AND VACCINES (INCLUDING NEW FUTURE DRUGS) ARE OFFICIAL COUNTERMEASURES TO THE IMMINENT OUTBREAK.... No recourse. No review. No appeal. It's a done deal. Now, from everything I can see, a "companion" Bill, SB1873, which has passed out of committee on to the floor of the Senate and awaits debate and vote, will establish, among other things, MANDATED DRUGS AND VACCINES (you have to take them) for actual or potential outbreaks, epidemics, pandemics, bio-terror threats. That would provide the last link in the chain. Get it? <a href="http://www.nomorefakenews.com/">www.nomorefakenews.com/</a>

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Get it? <hr></blockquote> Yeah. Agenda 21 is on it's way to America with a vengeance.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:59 pm

It means that "Something Wicked This Way Comes", and that after they try it out here in the Untied States, the next stop will be Old Mum's Place (Great Britain), and if it flies there without too much opposition or violent protest, THE WORLD'S THE LIMIT!!! Christians, hold onto your Bibles. The rest of you, head for the hills! All HELL'S Gonna Break Loose!!! But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong! Peace and Love, Brother Floyd

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:53 pm

I'm finding information here that slightly contradicts what has been said by Mr Rappaport. First, according to this site: <a href="http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/new-news.html">www.oasisadvancedwellness...-news.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Urgent ACTION ALERT<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Senate Bill 1873 (SB1873) is new legislation that was whisked in and out of committee in a single day, and then rushed to the Senate Legislative Calendar in only one week. It may even have gone on to a whirlwind vote before you read this. SB1873 eliminates liability of pharmaceutical companies for damages by their vaccines and drugs. SB1873 also establishes a new federal agency that would operate in secret to keep information about vaccine damage and reactions from the public. This new agency would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. You may want to contact your senators and house representative to let them know what you think about this draconian measure.<hr></blockquote> So the bill he labels as a 'companion' bill mandating vaccinations is actually the one that he says was passed. It appears that the Bill titles have been confused. A companion Bill appears to be HR3970, and basically proposes the same thing: <a href="http://www.909shot.com/legs.htm">www.909shot.com/legs.htm</a> <a href="http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/S1873.htm">www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/S1873.htm</a> (*This page has PDF's for both Bills.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The final version of S1873 is still being negotiated but is heading to the full Senate for a vote very soon. You need to call and e-mail your Senator right now. This broad bill is being led by Republicans and will incorporate liability protections that will extend beyond bioterrorism products into the commercial market. House Bill 3970 is a close companion and is also moving quickly Both of these bills will provide extensive liability coverage leaving citizens with no recourse if they are injured or killed by products used during an emergency.<hr></blockquote> Frist's bullshit comes in the form of Senate Bill 3: <a href="http://www.909shot.com/Senate%20Bill%20%20S%203.pdf">www.909shot.com/Senate%20...0S%203.pdf</a> An article on this: <a href="http://www.909shot.com/ActionAlerts/S3Article.htm">www.909shot.com/ActionAle...rticle.htm</a> excerpt: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>They are at it again. Those determined federalists and lobbyists for big Pharma, who view informed consent advocates and vaccine victims as an impediment to exercising more control over and making more money off of America's forced vaccination system. This time, they are using the public's memory of September 11, 2001 to push a Senate bill (S.3) deceptively entitled "Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005." S.3 was one of the first bills introduced after the 109th Congress convened in January 2005. Main sponsors are Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Judd Gregg (R-NH), who attempted in the last Congress to pass legislation protecting drug companies from vaccine injury lawsuits in civil court and limiting the compensation vaccine victims could get under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. S. 3, like so many federal bills which have played off the fear generated by September 11, 2001, uses the public's concern about potential terrorism to shield drug companies from liability for vaccines that will be used by Americans whenever the Secretary of DHHS declares that a "disease or disorder presents a public health emergency." The bill's language, which refers to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.), is so broad and inclusive, that an outbreak of any infectious disease which could cause an "epidemic" or "pandemic" could qualify as a public health "emergency." At the same time, any vaccine manufactured by a drug company could qualify for complete liability protection depending upon if it used in the public health "emergency" declared by the Health Secretary. In light of the increasingly hysterical rhetoric coming out of the CDC about infectious diseases and the need for all children to get more than three dozen doses of a dozen vaccines, a few cases of measles or a particularly nasty flu season could be enough reason for the Health Secretary to label the event a public health "emergency." The Secretary of DHHS has already granted a request from the Secretary of the Department of Defense (DOD) in January 2005 to declare an "emergency" under provisions of the 2004 Project Bioshield Act (P.L. 108-276). This action was a blatant attempt to go around an injunction issued by federal Judge Emmet Sullivan in October 2004 after he ruled the military's involuntary anthrax vaccination program was illegal.<hr></blockquote> So far, I haven't found anything about mandatory vaccinations yet, or an actual Bill title for it..Feel free to lend a hand.

by **scollon** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:18 pm

"So far, I haven't found anything about mandatory vaccinations yet, or an actual Bill title for it..Feel free to lend a hand. " Sorry, I got it from Rense. I don't know how to check US legislation bills. It could well be a deliberate attempt to attract people to his site so they will sign up for "Premium Content Membership " because the "LAST CHANCE to sign up or renew is December 31, 2005!!" That's a clever piece of marketing if you're trying to attract morons (which is his only hope) . He sounds like a complete phony in fact. There is no actual material on his site apart from what you pay for and some lunatic rants.. That's a big problem I have with (especially right wing) conspiracy theorists who make a business out of it like Stanley Monteith (77 year old retired surgeon and still desperate for money) and the whole RBN thing, Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert (charlattan in my opinion), Hopsicker etc. etc. They over do it to make money. The simple information about the actual bill says enough by itself as an indicator of what's (probably) coming down.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sorry, I got it from Rense. I don't know how to check US legislation bills.<hr></blockquote> In the future a good resource for doing so is: <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/">thomas.loc.gov/</a> I'm not gonna shoot the messenger over it by any means, but if I wasn't exercising a little rigour of my own I would have fallen into a catatonic state reading that article, which is what I really wanted to do for a second.. While his info doesn't appear to be entirely correct, there's enough there for a genuine concern. Myself and a few others at CTC have been closely watching the Avian Flu debacle and have a pretty decent thread on it here: <a href="http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread9309.html">www.chemtrailcentral.com/...d9309.html</a> I have been to www.909shot.com several times specifically for monitoring these kind of goverment actions, but in the face of all the shit we scrutinize, I lapsed in my reviewing.. Time to get back to it.. Fascist support for Big Pharma is to be expected with the current Administration, Congressional support for mandatory vaccines is another, and if that's a reality, we need to hunt that down, and fast.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 12/27/05 8:44 pm

by **scollon** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:00 am

"I'm not gonna shoot the messenger over it by any means" Thanks, I don't feel like being shot tonight, it's a bit late. The legislation for mandatory vaccination will come after the outbreak (release) of the virus and it sweeps through the far east. The infection will no doubt 'mutate' and make it even more deadly. In my opinion, this could fly a long distance toward mandatory regular health checks (with possible quarantine) and even mandatory chipping in the longer term to test for the presence of a virus. Bush has already proposed the quarantine of cities with the military, you just know we are going to see at least one if not several 'New Orleans' type scenarios. When I saw NO, my first thought was that it's coming to all of us (martial law ). Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/27/05 9:01 pm

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:08 am

Ok, some more reading is in order here: <a href="http://www.nvic.org/PressReleases/101905Burrbill.htm">www.nvic.org/PressRelease...rrbill.htm</a> Excerpt: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"It is a sad day for this nation when Congress is frightened and bullied into allowing one profit making industry to destroy the seventh Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing citizens their day in court in front of a jury of their peers," said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of NVIC. "This proposed legislation, like the power and money grab by federal health officials and industry in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, is an unconstitutional attempt by some in Congress to give a taxpayer-funded handout to pharmaceutical companies for drugs and vaccines the government can force all citizens to use while absolving everyone connected from any responsibility for injuries and deaths which occur. It means that, if an American is injured by an experimental flu or anthrax vaccine he or she is mandated to take, that citizen will be banned from exercising the Constitutional right to a jury trial even if it is revealed that the vaccine maker engaged in criminal fraud and negligence in the manufacture of the vaccine." <hr></blockquote> This says nothing in regards to a declared emergency. There are already mandated vaccinations parents must give their children. In order to have a license to professionally Tattoo, many states require a mandatory Hep B vaccination. I know this cause I was forced to get the series if I wanted to work in Georgia. More: <a href="http://www.nvic.org/medias1873.htm">www.nvic.org/medias1873.htm</a> This article claims that S. 1873 itself contains the mandatory vaccination orders: <a href="http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/hanchette179.html">www.niagarafallsreporter....te179.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>OLEAN -- Last week's column warned of imminent federal legislation that would toss powerful pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars and complete protection from liability suits in case untested and experimental bird flu vaccines damage American recipients. It drew heavy response. The bill (S. 1873) -- a big congressional wet kiss to the drug industry -- is dressed up in a noble-sounding title: "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act." In essence, however, it would force Americans to receive inoculations against a disease that has yet to kill one of them, while removing their constitutional right to seek redress in our courts in case of injury or death from the shots because of company negligence. The proposal, now moving its way through the Senate, would also ban citizens from using the Freedom of Information Act and other popular informational laws to discover whether the new vaccine (when it is finally produced) was effective and safe, and even whether anyone had suffered adverse reactions to it. <hr></blockquote> It doesn not appear that a companion Bill is even neccessary. If anything, it suggests that they each may cover the same bases as a safeguard i case one fails. S. 1873 is a dirge to read, like all Bills, but I guess it's time to sit down and tear it apart..

Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

I Get It Scollon

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Re: Sneak Attack In Congress Gives Protection To Big Pharma

Who is online