Experts Agree: "The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act"
is a Plan for Medical Dictatorship and
Total Control of Health Care Decisions
∑ State public health authorities are being given control over firearms, alcohol and private property; the plan is an excuse for the federal government and the states to seize control of the entire health care system.
∑ Lawrence Gostin, the author of the plan, is an advocate of using force in the name of "protecting" the community; he served on the federal task force to implement Hillary Clintonís health care scheme.
∑ A mandatory smallpox vaccination program using a live virus could produce 70,000 severe reactions and injuries, several hundred deaths, and spread the disease to countless others.
∑ A top-down federal command-and-control scheme ignores the necessary involvement on a practical level of ordinary citizens.
∑ States already have the power to control outbreaks of contagious diseases.
There is a real danger that, in the war on terrorism, law-abiding American citizens could be forced to sacrifice their rights. That is clearly the case with the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) scheme for the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. In the name of protecting us from bioterrorism, the CDC has endorsed a plan written by Lawrence Gostin, a former member of Hillary Clintonís health care task force with very close ties to the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations. Clinton holdover and CDC director Dr. Jeffrey Koplan unveiled the plan for public health authorities to take over hospitals, seize drug supplies, quarantine people, draft doctors, force patients to be vaccinated, prevent people from leaving contaminated areas, and destroy contaminated property without the ownersí consent.
The CDC is the same group of folks who lied to the American people about condoms supposedly having the ability to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. They said condoms prevented most STDs when the evidence showed the exact opposite. Because of them, we have an epidemic of STDs in America. This is the same group that failed to promote legitimate public health initiatives that could have helped contain the spread of other diseases such as AIDS.
Now they want to protect us from bioterrorism?
So what will they do if we try to leave a contaminated area? Shoot us?
They say the big danger today is smallpox. We donít have enough vaccine and when we do, they may try to force us all to get a smallpox shot. Thatís potentially dangerous because the current vaccine is a live virus. For many, the vaccine may be as dangerous as the disease.
Why donít we have enough vaccine? And why donít we have a safe vaccine? Federal incompetence. The public health establishment was told by the CIA back in 1995 that Osama bin Laden possibly had the virus. The feds failed to act.
Actually, the feds have known with certainty since the early 1990s that the smallpox virus was in the hands of terrorists and terrorist states. And here is where the story gets interesting. Only the Soviets/Russians and the United States are supposed to have the virus, because it was officially eradicated in 1980. Thatís why smallpox vaccinations were discontinued. American scientist Donald A. Henderson, who led the U.N. World Health Organization effort to eradicate smallpox, says he feels "betrayed totally" by the Soviets, who, after it was officially eradicated, proceeded to make it into a weapon. The United Nations gets part of the blame because the WHO was supposed to safeguard the virus.
Not only did federal officials fail to act, Henderson agitated for the U.S. to destroy our stockpile of the virus. That would have put us at an even more fatal disadvantage. President Bush, to his great credit, has said no to that.
Regarding the vaccine, what if the terrorists have vaccine-resistant smallpox? Ken Alibek, who helped run the Soviet bioweapons program, says too much hope is being placed in vaccines which donít exist for every possible biological agent or strain of a virus. He points out that the Soviets also developed other diseases as weapons. What about those? Alibek says more effort should be placed on treating diseases when they occur.
Itís also worthwhile to take a look at what was being said before the current hysteria. The book, Living Terrors, co-authored by Dr. Michael Osterholm, an acknowledged expert in the field, was published last year. He says the likelihood of being infected by a bioterrorist attack is comparable to being struck by lightening. He warned about the anthrax vaccine and the smallpox vaccine, which "has side effects that would be unacceptable to many people todayÖ" Osterholm worried about "disease hustlers" who would try to force these vaccines on everybody, when only a limited number of volunteer public health workers preparing for an outbreak of a disease would need to get vaccinated.
The program Endangered Liberties has aired a discussion of the proposed legislation. Hosted by Cliff Kincaid, president of Americaís Survival, Inc., it featured Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council (www.alec.org) and Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (www.909shot.com). What follows is an edited transcript of the show:
Cliff Kincaid, President, Americaís Survival:
Since September11th thereís almost no terrorist act considered unthinkable. The most talked about threat is bio-terrorism. And officials are scrambling to come up with some kind of plan in the event of such an attack. Unfortunately some of whatís being planned is not good. In fact it is frightening. The Department of Health and Human services is encouraging state governments to pass new laws that would, according to the Washington Post, permit large scale quarantine, forcible seizure of hospitals and other business, mandatory vaccination or treatment and destruction of property without the ownerís consent.
Joining me to discuss this topic is Sandy Liddy Bourne from ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. Here is the controversial piece of proposed legislation -- model legislation for the states -- endorsed by some big names -- the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and so on. This may sound harsh but they have set up a plan for a medical dictatorship for this country.
Sandy Liddy Bourne, American Legislative Exchange Council:
Unfortunately that is true. We need to step back and provide historical perspective. First of all, theyíre looking at this as a public health model and what to do in a time of war. Thatís where I have a strong difference of opinion with what they are trying to do. These organizations, the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, historically are to the left. And so theyíve had a lot of this language in the pipeline ready to go. Just waiting for an emergency to quickly try to push this through.
Letís go back in history. Germ warfare is not a stranger to this country. We have been looking at it through the centuries of man when people were flinging dead bodies over walls to spread the plague. They used smallpox to contaminate our Native American population. So this is not new to us.
In fact, today, weíve debunked the anthrax scare. The envelopes that were sent were clearly, from what I can read in the paper, weaponized spores that were designed to infect hundreds of thousands of people. It failed. It failed in a big way. Furthermore, we found out that there was one medication that could cure this or that could stop it, and that was Cipro. So immediately we began giving those people who were potentially contaminated the Cipro. Within 36 hours after testing the spores we found out that three other antibiotics could be used.
When you go back through our history of warfare, this country has relied upon the free market to provide us with solutions, and in fact that has been our saving grace in every single occurrence. Letís go back to World War lI. Remember the pictures of Rosie the Riveter? Many people will tell you those were the women, the tough women. In reality, that was a picture of our manufacturers putting out as quickly as they could our best technology to our soldiers who were fighting. We need to do the same thing right now. Relax the regulations on our biotechnological companies on all of our free market and let them, in modern day terms, rock and roll. And develop the medicines we need to fight bio-terrorism, even smallpox.
Kincaid: Here weíre dealing with something thatís deadly and very contagious. They say one case is too many and can lead to dozens, hundreds, hundreds of thousands of cases. Itís fine to talk about biotech and the drug companies coming through some time. But what are we going to do in the meantime if a smallpox attack occurs?
Bourne: When we last were studying smallpox we had no cure against viruses. We now have 21 medicines on the shelves. With HIV we also began studying viruses. There are probably now 4 or 5 of those 21 drugs used against viruses that have the potential to go after smallpox. Letís look into those medications; see what we can find now that we have a need. There wasnít a need to study smallpox because we eradicated it, we thought, from the face of the earth.
Kincaid: But if a case does break out, if weíre under attack from smallpox as a weapon, whatís wrong with giving public health officials at the federal or state level the power to quarantine people, to isolate them and perhaps even force them to be vaccinated?
Bourne: The problem that we have from the state perspective is that all of the vaccinations are being held at CDC, Centers for Disease Control. So, by the time you find that person that has been contaminated there are not medications at the state level, there are no regional stockpiles. Yet thatís the first thing we need to do.
Kincaid: So at least isolate and quarantine them.
Bourne: You can and thatís already there. We already have those powers; we donít need new laws.
Kincaid: So the states already have that power.
Bourne: Yes. We donít need new laws to do this. If they see a contagious disease, they can quickly isolate them in the hospital and find out what they had. Then they go to the next group of people and they can vaccinate that circle of people. Thatís an appropriate response. Mass vaccination is not necessarily the best response.
Kincaid: If the states already have this power, whatís behind this new proposal?
Bourne: Rationing health care. Where did you hear that before?
Kincaid: Rationing health care. You mean itís designed to go into other health areas?
Bourne: This is under the auspices of bio-terrorism. You look at this language and you see that the public health director of the states has the authority to control property, and control material and control people. That is a perspective that is unprecedented in the history of this country -- to give the public health director, a non-elected official, that kind of authority.
Kincaid: Barbara, letís get into the area of smallpox and mandatory vaccines, because this is seems to be where the focus is now -- that weíre in danger of a smallpox attack and a smallpox vaccine is the only hope. Do you agree?
Barbara Loe Fisher, president, National Vaccine Information Center:
The National Vaccine Information Center has been monitoring vaccine research and policy making for the past 20 years and what weíve been really concerned about is the increasing militarization of the public health infrastructure. I think this model state legislation is further proof that that has been the goal all along. And with regard to smallpox vaccine I think we have to remember it is the most reactive vaccine that has ever been used in the human population. It caused more injuries and deaths than any other vaccine. It was a well-kept secret, but that basically is the truth. When you look at this vaccine you see it is a live vaccinia virus vaccine, which is really a genetic hybrid of the variola virus that causes smallpox and the cowpox virus that causes infection in cows. We donít have it in our population anymore. Because we donít vaccinate for smallpox we would have to reintroduce that live vaccine. It has the ability to infect you with the vaccinia virus and you can infect other people with the virus and it cause severe complications. One in four thousand people will have a severe enough complication that they will require vaccinia immune globulin. The existing supplies that we have of this smallpox vaccine have deteriorated and are very compromised, as is the vaccinia immune globulin.
Kincaid: Weíre told that mass vaccination programs for smallpox eradicated the disease.
Fisher: The vaccinia virus put pressure on the variola virus and that is how they were able to eradicate the disease. But the problem is we donít have vaccinia virus in our population anymore. We donít use the vaccine. To reintroduce that, particularly for people under thirty who have never had experience with it, what weíre going to have, weíre going to have that virus circulating again, and again you can give the virus to other people once youíve been vaccinated and cause their death or injury particularly the immune compromised. Youíre going to have some people who are biologically or genetically more vulnerable to reacting to this vaccine, or to die or be injured by the disease. So what you have is this -- a dangerous disease and a dangerous vaccine.
Now the question becomes in a state of emergency, do we want to put the power -- your right to decide what youíre willing to die for basically -- in the hands of an elite few who are going to make that decision for you? Your choice between a dangerous disease or a dangerous vaccine. I think we have to look at what is really occurring here. Do we have the right as citizens in a free society to make life and death decisions for ourselves and our children. I think the answer has got to be yes. Itís the most important decision youíll ever make. What are you willing to die for?
Kincaid: The state officials are looking at the well being of society as a whole and they might figure weíll lose less people by using the vaccine then letting the disease itself grow.
Fisher: Those who want to vaccinate have every right to vaccinate. Then they are protected. Right? My family is biologically genetically vulnerable to reacting to vaccines. The choice that we would have in the case of a true exposure to smallpox virus is a horrible one because we could die very easily from the vaccine, as we could die from the disease. That decision belongs to me. Not to the state.
Bourne: To highlight her point, one of the first criticisms out of the box on this whole thing is that the CDC are talking about inoculating themselves, but nobody else. And already the states are complaining that theyíre not getting access to the vaccinations to help the population. So the elitism is already present and working, now in the CDC. Thatís a fundamental problem with this. Theyíre talking about federal control, and command and control. But our enemy right now is a network of individuals and a network of countries. Itís not Russia; itís not Nazi Germany. These folks are going to use multiple targets at multiple times. So therefore we donít want a command and control response coming down from the federal government. We want to have the states and the individuals and the localities prepared to respond if they need to. It will be the citizens that will respond first in an emergency. Just as we saw on September 11th, it was the firemen, the policemen and individual citizens that responded to the attacks on the Pentagon and New York. In New York, one of the lessons learned was that the Department of Health and Human Services was able to get 50 tons of medical supplies to New York, but they were not able to distribute the supplies at the time they needed them on the ground.
Kincaid: We are in favor of drugs and other medications as treatment if somebody comes down with smallpox. But in the meantime, if there is an outbreak, would you object to forcibly isolating, even quarantining those people who are infected?
Fisher: I think quarantine, under proper circumstances, is much preferable to forcing medication or vaccination, because that truly puts the individual at risk for injury or death. With a quarantine youíre not mixing those unvaccinated with those who were infected, which would put a personís life in jeopardy. I think we have to remember that in times of emergency we need to have the trust of the citizens, the confidence of the citizens, in any emergency response plan. When you start forcing people -- not allowing them recourse even to court, to lawyers in a court -- before you isolate them and forcibly vaccinate or medicate, this is not a situation that I would think we would want in our country. The people are going to be afraid. They are going to be more afraid if the government response is working against rather than with them.
There was a bioethicist who had a quote in a newspaper in California. He said this law, this proposed legislation, treats the people as the enemy. I think itís the wrong kind of message to send, particularly in time of fear and confusion that weíre now in following these terrorist attacks.
Bourne: I think youíre forgetting about the individual patient-physician relationship there. ALEC does not have a policy on mandatory vaccinations, but a particular patient may have contra-indications to a vaccine and the physician should make the call. Itís a personal decision, I think, between the patient and the physician.
Kincaid: Sandy, you refer earlier to some of these groups involved in this Model State Emergency Health Powers Act as being left of center. Your group ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, is definitely conservative. Itís made up of state legislators.
Kincaid: Bipartisan. But we have a conservative, former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, now secretary of Health and Human Services. And yet heís endorsed this.
Bourne: I cannot speak for the secretary, I think that since September 11th our leadership has been faced with some difficulties that were basically left-over unfinished business from the previous administration. At a time of anxiety and trying to take control of these attacks and with agencies still filled with holdovers from the Clinton administration -- because weíve got a Senate thatís been blocking confirmations -- I think bad advice came up. Unfortunately, sometimes when youíre in charge you do things hoping that youíre doing the right thing, but itís based on hope. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, look at the facts, look at the research. As I said earlier weíve already debunked anthrax. We found out the attack didnít work. Weíve got three antibiotics that can address it. So letís just slow down and wait and see what happens.
Kincaid: Barbara, you wanted to make a point about where this whole thing is heading. We have the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, but there is other legislation up on Capitol Hill that is going through, designed to protect the makers of these new controversial vaccines from any liability.
Fisher: Yes. The drug makers are asking for totally immunity for any liability associated with injuries and deaths caused by, for example, the smallpox vaccine. I think it is important to remember the smallpox vaccine was never subjected to clinical trials before it was used on a widespread basis. So even the old vaccine or a new vaccine that would be created needs to be subjected to modern standards that are in place to evaluate new vaccines or an old vaccine as in this case. They are also asking for immunity from liability for the injuries and deaths. They want to model the legislation on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which was passed in 1986. Iím very familiar with that law, because I worked on it. It has really been tremendously gutted by the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice to the extent that 2 out of 3 children who are vaccine-injured and apply for federal compensation are turned away. So you have a situation where you have drug companies with no liability but when it comes to the vaccine injuries and deaths, the government doesnít pay.
Kincaid: Can you give me an estimate if we were to vaccinate America, how many deaths or injuries would you suspect would come out of that?
Fisher: According to one of the expert groups on bio-terrorism there would be 1 in 4000 people would have severe reactions. Thatís about 70,000 severe reactions that would occur in about 280 million people. They say that 1 in a million dies. Whether thatís a low estimate or not, that would be at least 280 deaths. But you have to remember that for this vaccine, 1 in 1890 persons will have spread the lesion from the original site around the body to all sorts of areas of your body. They might be able to communicate that to other people that would get sick. Itís a highly reactive vaccine. I donít think we have any idea how many reactions it will cause particularly in the people under 30 who have never had experience with this virus at all.
Kincaid: We can talk about legislation and where it is going but this is a situation of war. The phrase here -- Emergency Health Powers. Couldnít the President himself simply short-circuit the legislative process and through executive order say, ĎLook we need this vaccine, weíre going to mandate it.. Weíre going to force it on everybody. We just have to do it for the sake of the country in a time of emergency and war.í So where does that leave us?
Fisher: Iím not sure that this president would do that. I suppose thatís a possibility but I think that vaccine laws, for example, are state laws and the public health laws are state laws.
Kincaid: They are saying this is the most powerful president since FDR, in terms of war powers. Couldnít he mandate it?
Bourne: Heís not even close yet to being near President Roosevelt. Letís go back to our founding fathers here for a moment. When we have had times of war it is appropriate for the president to take executive action to protect the country. But let us not forget that if there has ever been, in our history, an overreach of those powers, the legislative body has stepped in and taken back some of that power. It has been cyclical and it has worked every time so letís not start bashing the president because he is doing what he thinks is best to protect the country. And he hasnít taken that action in an executive order to mandate vaccines at this point in time. But what Iím failing to see across the board is addressing the local response to terrorism and weíre all still thinking high level command and control. We need to get down to the ground and figure out what we can do. Pittsburgh has a good model of what we can do. Weíre talking about communication. In the reality of war time we can have our communications knocked out, and we saw that on September 11. The Emergency Broadcast System did not work in Washington D.C. All the cell phones were cut off and jammed. So how are these people going to communicate with each other? Weíve seen the natural disasters across the country - phone lines have been taken out. So you have to rely on radio control. Do you have the effective means to communicate on the ground? We saw that the response by the municipalities here in Washington was they werenít able to communicate with each other.
Kincaid: Youíre suggesting that the states, the localities, ought to concentrate on more practical things.
Bourne: Absolutely. Because itís the practical responses, the free thinking responsive individuals on the ground, that are going to survive and stay alive and prevail over time with this.
Fisher: This model state legislation puts the entire command of a public health emergency in the hands of public health officials, including the right to seal the borders, to appropriate private property, communications devices, fuel, food, clothing, alcohol, firearms.
Bourne: Itís backwards. Itís the last thing you want to do to allow people to survive. Other things you want to look at: surveillance and detection. You want to determine if there was some kind of bioterrorism attack and address it. You want to decontaminate on the site. You donít necessarily want to walk into everything and bring everyone into the hospital. You ought to have interdisciplinary teams that can go back into an area that you think has been hit and contain it over there. You want to look at your medical supplies, your training of first responders. Also, you want to look at the mental health responseÖ.
Kincaid: This plan is really a excuse to take over the entire health care system.
Bourne: We should focus on what we can do on the ground to enable people to help themselves.
Kincaid: But we are in a panic.
Fisher: Cool heads have to prevail, especially in times of emergency. People have to feel their government and their local officials are working with them, not against them Ė not treating people as the enemy,
Kincaid: But people out there are panicked. The federal government is acting quickly to foist this Model State Emergency Health Powers Act on the states. And many of the states are eager to carry these draconian measures forward. What can ordinary people do?
Fisher: People have to become involved in the legislative process in the states. They have to monitor their public health committees for this legislation to be introduced and then they have to be prepared to leave their jobs, leave their homes, take their babies in their arms, and go to these hearings and make their voices heard. The National Vaccine Information Center is going to release a major report on smallpox and forced vaccination. It will be up on our Webs site (www.909shot.com) very soon. Education Ė informing the people Ė and then getting involved in the legislative process at the local level and making sure their legislators know these are not the kinds of laws they want governing them if an emergency takes place.
Bourne: I have had a meeting with 60 legislators in Texas and we talked about this bill coming through. I think what our legislators can do is focus on a local response. Benjamin Netanyahu, who wrote a book on fighting terrorism, says over and over again that you need to educate the public on what they can do for self-defense and to protect themselves and live with terrorismÖ.This legislation says the director of public health has the ability to limit firearms and your ownership of firearms. What is that doing in this bill? That is why, when I looked at this, it immediately lost credibility to me as a nurse because weíre talking about restricting civil liberties rather than fighting disease.
Kincaid: Who is really behind this? The actual author, Lawrence O Gostin, is professor and director of the Center for Law and the Public Health at Georgetown University Law Center. Who is he?
Bourne: This picture is from his book on public health law. You see a public health policeman. That is what heís all about. Withholding your civil liberties.
Fisher: Heís a longstanding forced vaccination proponent. I had a public argument with him at the Institute on Medicine in 1995 on Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme court decision that is supposed to be underpinning this law. That 1904 Supreme Court decision was the one that set the precedent for mandating smallpox vaccination in this country. That decision said clearly you cannot harm people by the implementation of this law. But thatís being totally disregarded when theyíre talking about forced vaccination under this law.
Bourne: When he defines public health law, one of his tenets is coercion. I quote from his book: "Health authorities possess the power to coerce individuals and businesses for the protection of the community rather than relying on a near universal ethic of volunteerism." I donít know what country he was born in, but I was born in the United States of America. The founding fathers wanted us to have volunteerism. The whole principle under which we live is volunteerism and individual rights. Over and over again Gostin talks about communal power to protect the community. He attempts to discuss balancing the Constitution and the power of the federal government with individual rights but throughout his book and writings he discusses coercion of individuals and the need for public health authorityÖ
Fisher: This model law has already been introduced in Massachusetts. I think other states are going to fall in line. I think that it is a tremendous threat. I donít know whatís going to happen. It will depend on the people. If they understand what it is really about, and they then take the initiative to go in and stop this, it will be stopped. If the people donít understand what itís about and donít take the initiativI think it will become law. And weíre going to live to regret it. (30)
Ingri Cassel, President
Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter
P.O. Box 1444
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816
(208) 255-2307 / email@example.com www.vaclib.org
"The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain"
Return to CONTENTS Page
Write to us at: Mission St Michael
Your use of this site is subject to
Terms and Conditions of Use
See also our