You heard it here!

Re: You heard it here!

Postby vanilla » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:58 am

Thomas wrote:Although apparently now you can become a conscientious objector they still require a legislated unlawful procedure.
Which is another option, ergo they are not mandatory.

"Even though vaccination in the UK is not compulsory, levels of immunisation are generally very high, but are affected by public opinion regarding the risks of side effects.65 Some suggest that compulsory vaccination cannot be justified in the UK in view of the high levels of population immunity which currently exist." British Medical Association - Childhood immunisation: a guide for healthcare professionals

Thomas wrote:And further the Law regarding the intentional poisoning of people is a capital offense in Law (not legislation)
That's nice.
vanilla
 
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:42 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby ljtherock » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:59 am

chaz63 wrote:you know what?its the same with everything.i try to wise people up about a few things but realised a while back that theres no point.they dont want to know.euro collapse,chemtrails,nwo.they agree with what im saying.but thats as far as it goes.no one is interested.cant put my finger on why.im sure they cant be dumbed down that much.where are all the people from the trenches,the battle of britain,the blitz?.where the fuck are they?



Surely you can see that the ones you talk of are dead...

Let the dead bury the dead and prepare yourself to be ready. ;)
ljtherock
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:59 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby ljtherock » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:02 am

vanilla wrote:
Thomas wrote:Although apparently now you can become a conscientious objector they still require a legislated unlawful procedure.
Which is another option, ergo they are not mandatory.

"Even though vaccination in the UK is not compulsory, levels of immunisation are generally very high, but are affected by public opinion regarding the risks of side effects.65 Some suggest that compulsory vaccination cannot be justified in the UK in view of the high levels of population immunity which currently exist." British Medical Association - Childhood immunisation: a guide for healthcare professionals

Thomas wrote:And further the Law regarding the intentional poisoning of people is a capital offense in Law (not legislation)
That's nice.



Not so nice when you are on the recieving end of it... ;)
ljtherock
 
Posts: 1916
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:59 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby Thomas » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:27 am

Which is another option, ergo they are not mandatory.

"Even though vaccination in the UK is not compulsory, levels of immunisation are generally very high, but are affected by public opinion regarding the risks of side effects.65 Some suggest that compulsory vaccination cannot be justified in the UK in view of the high levels of population immunity which currently exist." British Medical Association - Childhood immunisation: a guide for healthcare professionals


mandatory
3.
Law . permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified: a mandatory clause.


According to them if the legislation say so it is, which they unlawfully change to suit.


http://vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccina ... gal-Rights
Changes To The Law On Vaccination

Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens [including children] without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out.

New law introduced by the backdoor in January this year obliges the Secretary of State for Health to implement any recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: [Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Vaccination].

Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-

* what exactly ‘right’ meant [under the new NHS constitution] with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and

* how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’“

In other words, if a parent does not want a child vaccinated but the JCVI have recommended all children be vaccinated, the JCVI are asking can their recommendation be challenged by the parent. It would seem once they have their answer, they will decide whether or not to make their recommendation. This appears one step from compulsory vaccination for children regardless of parental views or concerns.

If the JCVI decide to make their recommendation, and a legal case ensues this might mean a Guardian is appointed by the State to represent the interests of the child and through the Guardian sue its own parents to insist on the “right” to be vaccinated as mandated by the JCVI. The parents would in effect be forced to defend the case against their own child brought through the Guardian to oppose their own child being vaccinated. Once the first case was decided, the matter would be settled in practical terms for all UK parents.

Thus the UK appears to be on the verge of ‘1984′ style legislation and guidelines in which freedoms are taken away from citizens framed in terms of rights granted. And this has happened without political or public debate, scrutiny or democratic vote.

The newly published draft minutes for the JCVI in February disclose that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by executive order in January seem designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution.

According to the JCVI minutes the new NHS constitution states:

‘You have the right to receive the vaccinations that the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation recommend that you should receive under an NHS provided national immunisation programme.’

And:

‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’

The minutes state:

‘The JCVI was pleased the recommendations of the committee would have the force of law behind it. The committee asked for clarification on the constitution including what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’

Irrespective of any claimed benefits of a vaccine programme the constitutional implications of this change are concerning.

The JCVI is by law now a law unto itself and flexing its muscles despite a history of disregard for safety issues over the past 20 years and more.

It is unclear what ultimate responsibility the JCVI bears for its actions, or if any sanctions apply to it. The criterion for recommendations by the JCVI is purely on “cost-effectiveness” not safety - a re-statement of the committee’s defective historical remit. JCVI members have financial and professional associations with vaccine manufacturers. No action has been taken to curb this.

Any ordinary concept of legality appears subverted, and power ceded to industry insiders.

This has taken place without democratic reference: compulsory vaccination is not part of any party’s policy and it has never been debated in Parliament.
Thomas
 
Posts: 7542
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby thx1138 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:39 am

Thomas wrote:
Which is another option, ergo they are not mandatory.

"Even though vaccination in the UK is not compulsory, levels of immunisation are generally very high, but are affected by public opinion regarding the risks of side effects.65 Some suggest that compulsory vaccination cannot be justified in the UK in view of the high levels of population immunity which currently exist." British Medical Association - Childhood immunisation: a guide for healthcare professionals


mandatory
3.
Law . permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified: a mandatory clause.


According to them if the legislation say so it is, which they unlawfully change to suit.


http://vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccina ... gal-Rights
Changes To The Law On Vaccination

Contrary to assurances given by the UK Government to leading politicians, fears earlier this year that the Government is moving to make the vaccination schedule compulsory for British citizens [including children] without reference to Parliament, and without public debate seem to be being borne out.

New law introduced by the backdoor in January this year obliges the Secretary of State for Health to implement any recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: [Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Vaccination].

Under the new law, the JCVI is now asking [full quote below]:-

* what exactly ‘right’ meant [under the new NHS constitution] with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and

* how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’“

In other words, if a parent does not want a child vaccinated but the JCVI have recommended all children be vaccinated, the JCVI are asking can their recommendation be challenged by the parent. It would seem once they have their answer, they will decide whether or not to make their recommendation. This appears one step from compulsory vaccination for children regardless of parental views or concerns.

If the JCVI decide to make their recommendation, and a legal case ensues this might mean a Guardian is appointed by the State to represent the interests of the child and through the Guardian sue its own parents to insist on the “right” to be vaccinated as mandated by the JCVI. The parents would in effect be forced to defend the case against their own child brought through the Guardian to oppose their own child being vaccinated. Once the first case was decided, the matter would be settled in practical terms for all UK parents.

Thus the UK appears to be on the verge of ‘1984′ style legislation and guidelines in which freedoms are taken away from citizens framed in terms of rights granted. And this has happened without political or public debate, scrutiny or democratic vote.

The newly published draft minutes for the JCVI in February disclose that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by executive order in January seem designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution.

According to the JCVI minutes the new NHS constitution states:

‘You have the right to receive the vaccinations that the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation recommend that you should receive under an NHS provided national immunisation programme.’

And:

‘You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination.’

The minutes state:

‘The JCVI was pleased the recommendations of the committee would have the force of law behind it. The committee asked for clarification on the constitution including what exactly ‘right’ meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge.’

Irrespective of any claimed benefits of a vaccine programme the constitutional implications of this change are concerning.

The JCVI is by law now a law unto itself and flexing its muscles despite a history of disregard for safety issues over the past 20 years and more.

It is unclear what ultimate responsibility the JCVI bears for its actions, or if any sanctions apply to it. The criterion for recommendations by the JCVI is purely on “cost-effectiveness” not safety - a re-statement of the committee’s defective historical remit. JCVI members have financial and professional associations with vaccine manufacturers. No action has been taken to curb this.

Any ordinary concept of legality appears subverted, and power ceded to industry insiders.

This has taken place without democratic reference: compulsory vaccination is not part of any party’s policy and it has never been debated in Parliament.


THEM-----------------who?
thx1138
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:55 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby chaz63 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:55 am

they are dead ljthejock.but as you "probably" know ,i was refering to their spirit.but i see where your coming from.maybe the spirits dead aswell.
chaz63
 

Re: You heard it here!

Postby bodge » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:52 am

At last a decent argument and one that many people are responding to which means there is a point here. Vaccinations became "fashionable" and then they ended up in the law courts and became "law".

If you look at illnesses, sickness, disease and their history you will find a direct correlation between these things and "Hygiene". Good hygiene and sanitation wiped out most illnesses and now its going the other way where "too much hygiene" is making us susceptible to other illnesses and lots of the old ones. Instead of having a level of cleanliness (which is good) we have a level of sanitation and hygiene that has reduced our ability to fight off illnesses because we are losing the natural anti bodies like our old friend nematode but thats a whole different subject.

The human body hasnt evolved to take vaccinations directly into it, vaccinations kill people and are killing, maiming and destroying lives, they always have because we are all so different, we are all biologically the same but no two people are identical chemically and therefore treatments have to be slightly different. You only have to look at the HPV vaccine statistics and realise how many girls have died or become severely damaged by it. The vaccination programmes are pushed upon sheeple like vanilla who readily accept them as "good" because big brother says so and therefore it must be good.

I would have to be unconscious to have a vaccine of any description because I would never consent to it while I am aware of it. Vaccinations are all about "Profit", period!
Ged tha mi bochd tha mi uasal ; buidheachas do Dhia is ann de
Chlann 'ill Eathain mi (Though I am poor I am proud; thank God I am
a Maclean.)
User avatar
bodge
 
Posts: 19587
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: North Somerset
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby Thomas » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:49 am

If you look at illnesses, sickness, disease and their history you will find a direct correlation between these things and "Hygiene". Good hygiene and sanitation wiped out most illnesses and now its going the other way where "too much hygiene" is making us susceptible to other illnesses and lots of the old ones. Instead of having a level of cleanliness (which is good) we have a level of sanitation and hygiene that has reduced our ability to fight off illnesses because we are losing the natural anti bodies like our old friend nematode but thats a whole different subject.


I agree with that bodge and much of the vaccinations will also reduce our bodies immune system with it's preservatives and such, as will a poor diet. An example of the "Hygiene" gone wrong, another subject that has been discussed here is pasteurised milk, which kills of all the goodly stuff as well as any harmful pathogens and triggers off all sorts of conditions such as Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid arthritis.
Thomas
 
Posts: 7542
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: You heard it here!

Postby newbynewb » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:37 pm

weren't the first vaccines in England for Polio in the 50's (have I got that right?) and that they were given to children when the polio outbreak(?) was contained naturally and leveling off by the immune systems of the children prior, but the vaccination took the credit for it?

and now we find ourselves here.......

http://abcmt.org/A%20Novel%20Form%20of%20Mecury%20Poisoning.pdf
Any Government that will torture, will enslave.
newbynewb
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:48 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: You heard it here!

Postby bodge » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:46 pm

Yep and yep, pretty much.
S. Bernard, A. Enayati, L. Redwood, H. Roger, T. Binstock
ARC Research, Cranford, New Jersey, USA
Summary Autism is a syndrome characterized by impairments in social relatedness and communication, repetitive
behaviors, abnormal movements, and sensory dysfunction. Recent epidemiological studies suggest that autism may
affect 1 in 150 US children. Exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral
dysfunctions similar to traits defining or associated with autism, and the similarities extend to neuroanatomy,
neurotransmitters, and biochemistry. Thimerosal, a preservative added to many vaccines, has become a major source
of mercury in children who, within their first two years, may have received a quantity of mercury that exceeds safety
guidelines. A review of medical literature and US government data suggests that: (i) many cases of idiopathic autism
are induced by early mercury exposure from thimerosal; (ii) this type of autism represents an unrecognized mercurial
syndrome; and (iii) genetic and non-genetic factors establish a predisposition whereby thimerosal’s adverse effects
occur only in some children. © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
Ged tha mi bochd tha mi uasal ; buidheachas do Dhia is ann de
Chlann 'ill Eathain mi (Though I am poor I am proud; thank God I am
a Maclean.)
User avatar
bodge
 
Posts: 19587
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: North Somerset
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 127 times

PreviousNext

Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest