Please contact Mass Legislators/ Letter to follow with their contact info and more info on this bill
LETTER FROM DR. PATRICIA JORDAN:
Ref; Massachusetts Medical Exemption Bill, SB 784
Please write a letter to the Rules Committee asking that this SB 784 Rabies Vaccination Bill be reintroduced.
As a licensed professional in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a practicing veterinarian for 26 years, I implore each and every one of you; Senator James Eldridge; Co-Chair, Representative Paul Donato and Senator Steven Panagiotakos to step up for the citizens of Massachusetts.
Rabies vaccination laws as they currently stand are woefully and disturbingly not up to par with the advancement of science. Our own veterinary professional associations and each institute of higher learning veterinary college in these United States are aware that the vaccine intervals are not in keeping with the duration of immunity studies. The rabies vaccines is the most adverse event associated veterinary vaccine as well as the only legally mandated veterinary vaccine and because of this is the focus of another movement, a movement to make a Veterinary Vaccine injury Compensation Act into FEDERAL law. The advocate for this Veterinary Vaccine Injury Compensation Act is one of our leading Veterinary Oncologists, Dr. Dennis Macy.
In 1999 the World Health Organization in the IARC named the veterinary vaccine adjuvant a grade 3 out of 4 with 4 being the most powerful carcinogen. The vaccines are associated with cancer and the AVMA had enacted a Vaccine Associated Sarcoma Task Force that collected data and research that showed cats, dogs and ferrets were all developing cancer from vaccines.
Perdue University has with the studies conducted on vaccinated versus unvaccinated dogs in the Haywood study established the fact that only vaccinated dogs developed auto antibodies and auto antibodies are the precursor to autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases are now the most prolific medical disease we see in both human and animal medicine and the link to the vaccines is no longer a matter of speculation. Even the drug insert from Pfizer about the rabies vaccines puts in print the link of exogenous proteins in the vaccines and the development of autoimmune disease. Because of the breakdown of tumor surveillance, the ingredient mercury and aluminum mutators in the vaccines, the viruses and microbial proteins which lead to autoimmune disease and the shifting of a healthy cell mediated immune system bias to a very unhealthy, chronic inflammatory humoral immune mediated bias, the animals over vaccinated are now a cause of emerging public health issues.
If you do not see to it that the animals are not vaccinated into immune dysregulation and repetitive rabies vaccines that are unsafe and unnecessary are not used to ruin the health of the companion animals then the resulting public health crisis will be on your watch and on your hands.
There are studies completed that already show both dogs and cats having at least 5 years of immunity conveyance from one set of rabies vaccines. Indeed there are no recorded cases of any animals receiving a minimum of the 2 rabies to a mature mammalian immune system to ever developing the rabies disease. In humans, who the AVMA is on record admitting the same mammalian immune system as the canine, at least 14 years of amnestic response to rabies vaccination has been demonstrated.
The colorable laws of rabies must be changed to reflect the scientific knowledge that immunity to viral diseases are in many years, decades and that as Dr. Ron Schultz and Dr. Jean Dodds have reported good for the lifetime of the animals.
More vaccines are not innocuous and are not health promoting but rather health deconstructing now that the association of cancer, autoimmune disease and immune system dys regulation is a matter of record. To not allow the letter of waiver from additional rabies vaccines when a titer can demonstrate an individual’s antibody to rabies virus is sufficient or an animal with any type of immune system impairment, cancer, loss of tumor surveillance ,autoimmune disease,allergies,asthma,atopy,anaphylaxis,ezchema,liver,kidney,heart,neurological disease or inflammatory myopathies, skin disorders, weight loss or any other type of disability like spleen removal or infections is to directly be responsible for the endangerment of not only the death or disability of the companion animal but also to the endangerment of the community and specifically to the public health of the Commonwealth’s citizens. To not act responsibly in seeing that the immune dysregulating vaccines do not continue to be administered is to personally be culpably responsible for the results of this decision.
Our rabies laws are antiquated and do not reflect what we now know about the genetic expression of disease from the vaccines that have been administered.
Dr. Ron Schultz has also established that additional vaccines are more of a menace to processed patients then a reinforcement of immunity. In contrast more is not better, it is disabling to the immune system.
It has been known since 1947 and a matter of scientific study and published papers since 1954 that only one antirabies vaccine administered to a healthy mammalian immune system is sufficient to confer immunity for the lifetime of a mammal. Indeed, humans are now realized to have 92 years of immunity from one small pox vaccine. Titer requirements can be made mandatory after rabies vaccine processing but right now the legislation must be enacted to protect the public health from over vaccinated companion animals with dys regulated immune systems that will weaken the protection of community health.
I am familiar with Joann Camilli and the disservice the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did to her family, to her children and especially to her companion dog “Louie”. For her Louie to be mandated an unsafe and unnecessary rabies vaccine in the face of obvious kidney disease, weight loss and hematuria
(all the hallmark of serum sickness from prior vaccine administration and antibody antigen complex damage to the kidneys) so that the vaccination lead to the immediate further decline and death which occurred in front of the eyes of Mrs. Camilli’s’ young daughter is a reflection of just how barbaric and irrational our culture has become. The treatment that Mrs. Camilli received from her veterinarian during this event also which was very well documented is behavior unbecoming of a veterinary medical professional and constitutes not only poor judgment but a lack of comprehension of every line of our Veterinary Hippocratic Oath from ensuring animal welfare to promotion of public health and keeping up with the advancements in science.
The law should be intelligent and purposeful and not something used against man and beast neither to invoke physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering nor to kill. Enact a rabies vaccination waiver and in the process be a champion for public safety and health .Indeed I would be willing to supply your committee with the scientific papers necessary to document this position and to also provide cases, all from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which show the current situation in the veterinary practices all across the Commonwealth with the over use of vaccines to unhealthy animals. These cases establish the fact that Malpractice is the Standard of Care and this is why emerging public health issues exist.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dr. Jordan
Judy Schor
Friend of the Rabies Challenge Fund
http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/
The Challenge fund is a federally registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization [Fed. EIN # 84-6390682].
__._,_.___
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Update MA Medical Exemption Bill SB 784: 6/29/10 --per Kris Christine of the Rabies Challenge Fund:
(May be cross-posted; need your help if interested, in passing this in Massachusetts for dogs needing an exemption from the anti-rabies Vaccine)
Update MA Medical Exemption Bill SB 784: 6/29/10 --per Kris Christine of the Rabies Challenge Fund:
“I spoke with a staff person in Senator Eldridge's office this morning, and they said the Senator has been receiving calls requesting that he write the Rules Committee asking that SB 784, the rabies medical exemption bill, be reintroduced for passage and that "It is on his radar." Please continue to call the two Co-Chairs of the Massachusetts Municipalities and Regional Government Committee asking them to request reintroduction of Senate Bill #784 “
Senator James Eldridge, Co-Chair James.Eldridge@state.ma.us Phone: (617) 722-1120 Fax: (617) 722-1089
Representative Paul Donato Co-Chair Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us Phone: (617) 722-2090 Fax: (617) 722-2848
Update MA Medical Exemption Bill SB 784: 6/29/10 --per Kris Christine of the Rabies Challenge Fund:
“I spoke with a staff person in Senator Eldridge's office this morning, and they said the Senator has been receiving calls requesting that he write the Rules Committee asking that SB 784, the rabies medical exemption bill, be reintroduced for passage and that "It is on his radar." Please continue to call the two Co-Chairs of the Massachusetts Municipalities and Regional Government Committee asking them to request reintroduction of Senate Bill #784 “
Senator James Eldridge, Co-Chair James.Eldridge@state.ma.us Phone: (617) 722-1120 Fax: (617) 722-1089
Representative Paul Donato Co-Chair Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us Phone: (617) 722-2090 Fax: (617) 722-2848
Monday, June 28, 2010
Cybersecurity Measures Will Mandate Government “ID Tokens” To Use The Internet
Cybersecurity Measures Will Mandate Government “ID Tokens” To Use The Internet
Gargantuan move against Internet freedom accelerates into high gear
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 28, 2010
The move to shut down and regulate the Internet under a new government-controlled system has accelerated into high gear with the announcement that the government’s cybersecurity strategy revolves around issuing Internet users with ID “tokens” without which they will not be able to visit websites, the latest salvo against web freedom which, in combination with Senator Joe Lieberman’s ‘kill switch’ bill, will serve to eviscerate the free Internet as we know it.
Under the guise of “cybersecurity,” the government is moving to discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web.
It is important to stress that “cybersecurity” has nothing to do with protecting the infrastructure of the United States and everything to do with taking over the Internet. Cybersecurity is about attacking non-compliant Internet users, not defending against hackers. Non-compliance equates as using the Internet as a political tool to dissent against the policies of the U.S. government. Having already tried and failed in flooding the web with paid disinformation agents, the government is now turning to its only recourse, exploiting hyped or outright staged cyberattacks as an excuse through which to implement an Internet 2 system controlled and regulated solely by the authorities.
We are constantly told that the Internet needs to be subject to government control because cyberterrorists could hack in and bring down the national power grid. However, the vast majority of the U.S. power infrastructure is not connected to the Internet. It will only be connected to the Internet if the government accelerates the implementation of “smart grid” technology, so in this sense, the government itself is leaving the power grid more vulnerable to hackers by its own programs.
Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.
Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”
Should the government go ahead and try to exercise the powers it is now on the verge of acquiring, we’d expect to see the Internet shut down for a few days in order to prevent some kind of contrived cyberattack blamed on terrorists. Sure, there will be problems, but large corporations will raise little dissent safe in the knowledge that the Lieberman legislation gives them immunity from civil lawsuits and also ensures they are reimbursed for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
After a series of shutdowns, the government will simply demand that every corporation or individual who wants to operate a website first obtain a license and an individual Internet ID. Such licenses will be revoked for anyone who engages in “hate speech,” which is now so broad a term that it encompasses offending anyone on the Internet.
The result will be a sterile and regulated Internet which more closely resembles cable TV than the true open source, outpost of free speech that we have come to know and love.
This exact strategy was outlined in a paper published by Obama’s cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt, which was compiled with the aid of the National Security Council.
The strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records,” reports the FInancial Times.
Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.
It is imperative that everyone redouble their efforts to bring attention to this matter because Lieberman’s bill is on the verge of passing the Senate and it will hand the government total control over the Internet unless we can alert enough organizations from across the political spectrum to oppose this monstrosity in unison.
The true nature of the cybersecurity agenda was revealed when Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that his 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF) legislation was part of an effort to mimic China’s control of the Internet.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.
The Senator’s reference to China is a telling revelation of what the cybersecurity agenda is really all about. China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “war” and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.
Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.
China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse and atrocities. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.
Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.
News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments. This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.
Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a “blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a “whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers”. Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.
President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.
Given the nature of Chinese Internet regulation, with has nothing to do with “war” as Lieberman claims and everything to do with political censorship and covering up information about state oppression, we should be alarmed that the Senator wants to see America move in the same direction.
The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
In addition, the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation.
Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. “Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.
Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website, and this is precisely what the National Security Council has proposed for the new cybersecurity measures that are set to be implemented over the next few years.
Gargantuan move against Internet freedom accelerates into high gear
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 28, 2010
The move to shut down and regulate the Internet under a new government-controlled system has accelerated into high gear with the announcement that the government’s cybersecurity strategy revolves around issuing Internet users with ID “tokens” without which they will not be able to visit websites, the latest salvo against web freedom which, in combination with Senator Joe Lieberman’s ‘kill switch’ bill, will serve to eviscerate the free Internet as we know it.
Under the guise of “cybersecurity,” the government is moving to discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web.
It is important to stress that “cybersecurity” has nothing to do with protecting the infrastructure of the United States and everything to do with taking over the Internet. Cybersecurity is about attacking non-compliant Internet users, not defending against hackers. Non-compliance equates as using the Internet as a political tool to dissent against the policies of the U.S. government. Having already tried and failed in flooding the web with paid disinformation agents, the government is now turning to its only recourse, exploiting hyped or outright staged cyberattacks as an excuse through which to implement an Internet 2 system controlled and regulated solely by the authorities.
We are constantly told that the Internet needs to be subject to government control because cyberterrorists could hack in and bring down the national power grid. However, the vast majority of the U.S. power infrastructure is not connected to the Internet. It will only be connected to the Internet if the government accelerates the implementation of “smart grid” technology, so in this sense, the government itself is leaving the power grid more vulnerable to hackers by its own programs.
Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.
Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”
Should the government go ahead and try to exercise the powers it is now on the verge of acquiring, we’d expect to see the Internet shut down for a few days in order to prevent some kind of contrived cyberattack blamed on terrorists. Sure, there will be problems, but large corporations will raise little dissent safe in the knowledge that the Lieberman legislation gives them immunity from civil lawsuits and also ensures they are reimbursed for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
After a series of shutdowns, the government will simply demand that every corporation or individual who wants to operate a website first obtain a license and an individual Internet ID. Such licenses will be revoked for anyone who engages in “hate speech,” which is now so broad a term that it encompasses offending anyone on the Internet.
The result will be a sterile and regulated Internet which more closely resembles cable TV than the true open source, outpost of free speech that we have come to know and love.
This exact strategy was outlined in a paper published by Obama’s cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt, which was compiled with the aid of the National Security Council.
The strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records,” reports the FInancial Times.
Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.
It is imperative that everyone redouble their efforts to bring attention to this matter because Lieberman’s bill is on the verge of passing the Senate and it will hand the government total control over the Internet unless we can alert enough organizations from across the political spectrum to oppose this monstrosity in unison.
The true nature of the cybersecurity agenda was revealed when Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that his 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF) legislation was part of an effort to mimic China’s control of the Internet.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.
The Senator’s reference to China is a telling revelation of what the cybersecurity agenda is really all about. China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “war” and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.
Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.
China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse and atrocities. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.
Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.
News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments. This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.
Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a “blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a “whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers”. Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.
President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.
Given the nature of Chinese Internet regulation, with has nothing to do with “war” as Lieberman claims and everything to do with political censorship and covering up information about state oppression, we should be alarmed that the Senator wants to see America move in the same direction.
The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
In addition, the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation.
Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. “Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.
Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website, and this is precisely what the National Security Council has proposed for the new cybersecurity measures that are set to be implemented over the next few years.
Doctors call for total NHS ban on homoeopathy
Doctors call for total NHS ban on homoeopathy
BMA conference tables seven motions against public funding of 200-year-old 'unscientific' practice
By Nina Lakhani
BMA conference tables seven motions against public funding of 200-year-old 'unscientific' practice
By Nina Lakhani
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
