[emphasis mine]

In his chapter in our book, Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, Allen Tate makes the point that if one is going to make a greater good argument (that one unsavory thing must be undertaken to get something more important for more people) one must first ACTUALLY PROVE THAT SUCH A THING WILL BRING ABOUT A GREATER GOOD. He then evaluates the greater good argument made for the current vaccine program (which does not include forced vaccine trial participation) and finds that it does not even meet the standard of a “greater good”.

But no problem with that here for Sheehy and Meyer, because as they point out, it is vaccine maker Bill Gates’ opinion (who is very rich btw), and few would argue with him… so… it must be the best thing for everyone.

It is at this point that I have to offer Leslie Manookin high praise for so aptly naming her vaccine documentary, “The Greater Good”. Let’s pause here for a moment to see what this “greater good” program is doing to the vulnerable in our society:

And that is from APPROVED vaccines.

They truly see us and our children as functionaries in their system. Medicine does not exist to make you, the individual, better; You, the individual, exist to make Medicine better. You are theirs to “conscript”. They can draft you into their service as an actual “lab rat.” (And no that is not an exaggeration as the third sentence in this article reads, “The lack of animal models that can reliably predict vaccine efficacy means that development still unavoidably relies on testing of novel vaccines in healthy individuals.”)

See? Not about your and your rights and your health. Your rights are not even factored into their arguements. Check this:

“As ever, then, the debate boils down to a consideration of the “greater good” or the “lesser evil.” A key consideration is the risk benefit ratio—risk to the individual volunteer balanced against the benefit to society. “

“As ever…” as in the only thing they are taking into account. The deciding factor.

Then the article truly falls into Orwellian doublespeak. They authors acknowledge that forcing people to participate in vaccine trials, will violate respect for peoples rights, violate the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, and destroy trust in the vaccine program. Their solution?

“A more palatable and realistic option is a policy of “mandated choice.” In this case individuals would be required by law to state in advance their willingness to participate in vaccine trials [15]. The advantage of this system is that it could identify a large cohort of willing volunteers from which participants could be recruited rapidly without jeopardizing individual autonomy. It would encourage an open, noncoercive philosophy for tackling societal challenges without compromising individual freedom or public trust in the health care system.”

Mandated choice? MANDATED CHOICE?!!

UP IS DOWN!
BLACK IS WHITE!
WAR IS PEACE!
VIOLENCE IS LOVE!
MANDATE IS CHOICE!!!!!

So the law REQUIRING YOU to say you will participate before hand, then holding you to it later, is choice! It is not coercive, does not violate your right to informed consent, and will not destroy trust in the vaccine program or in medicine or government in general!

Welcome to 1984!! The law will require you to commit you to volunteer your body to science! The law does not even do that now for DEAD PEOPLE!

And to skip back a bit, follow this logic… paying people lots of money to participate in trials sabatoges “informed consent”, but legally forcing them to consent, is “informed consent.” Coercing with money = immoral. Coercing with a gun = moral!

Then we get to the kernel of the issue. That people just don’t value vaccines enough, so the law must now force them to be valued. And no such article should go with out a shot at Wakefield and our community:

“But perhaps most importantly, as a society we need to evaluate our perception of vaccination. Any successful vaccine program by its very nature takes a once-feared illness out of the public eye. This means that the benefits of immunization become forgotten while side effects in small numbers of individuals fill the headlines. It is all too easy for sensationalist and unfounded stories such as that claiming a link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism [16] to instead take root in society’s collective psyche. Ultimately such a crucial public health intervention as vaccine development may become devalued—and only revalued once a drop in vaccination rates leads to resurgence of severe disease.”

“But perhaps more importantly…” Because more important than honoring the human rights of actual humans, is a valuable perception of vaccination.

Seriously… these people can go to hell. Or just visit Auschwitz, where medical progress was much more important than allowing people to say to NO to forced experimentation.

So to the publishers of this article:

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEET THE FREE MARKET!

Your product line called “vaccine” is not as valuable as you think it is. (In business this is called a “bubble”.) People are buying less of it. You have reached a saturation point. Time to wake up and smell the informed consent. The public has been informed… AND THEY DON’T CONSENT!

You will put experimental vaccines into the bodies of my family over my dead body.

Read the Full Story Here: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2012/01/ama-proposes-forcing-people-to.html