July 20th, 2009

Political Science: A Deadly Combination


photo credit: Ben Heine

The field of science relies upon challenging previous assumptions and understanding; by asking questions, we learn. Pursued properly, science can be a great asset to provide knowledge, technology, and progress to humanity. When married with government (the “political science” I here refer to—not the traditional definition), it becomes a force for deceit, destruction, and death.

The United States alone has already allotted nearly $8 billion for the swine flu pandemic, expecting this fall to be much worse in terms of population outbreak. Four companies have been contracted to produce and deliver vaccines for the American population, and countries are expected to fight over the limited supply that will be available and in high demand.

Unsurprisingly, there has been quite a bit of discussion for several weeks regarding the implementation of a national vaccination campaign, with some believing that the vaccination (a possible series of three shots) will be mandatory. The individuals we elected to discharge specific and limited duties are now scheming to determine if and how they should dictate the health decisions of each individual.

Additionally, few media outlets are emphasizing the historical connection to an eerily similar experience in 1976, when 25 people died as a direct result of the government-promoted (and propagandized) swine flu vaccine, with only one single death resulting from the actual virus itself. Hundreds of other vaccination victims developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralyzing neuromuscular disorder.

This numerical imbalance is hardly an unfortunate accident. There are allegations (also see part two of the linked video) that the government knew of the vaccine’s side effects without warning people (would that really surprise anybody?). With today’s swine flu vaccines being "fast tracked" and rushed through development, one can only wonder the extent to which clinical trials and standard research are being performed.

And herein lies the main disadvantage of mixing politics and science. The majority of sane people laugh with derision and scorn at Al Gore for hyping the supposed problem of global warming, and then claiming that the science is sound and the debate is over. Likewise, his proposed solution to the alleged problem is touted as the path for mankind to take in order to prevent cataclysmic doom. Yet many of these people reverse course when current elected officials do the same thing: the pandemic threat is hyped with a regurgitating media; the vaccines are promoted as medical miracles; any dissenting or contradicting results are sidelined and suppressed; alternatives are threatened and outlawed; and every single person is encouraged or required to be injected.

Rushed medicine is not good medicine. Politicized medicine is worse. When the authoritative mantle of government is draped over half-hearted research, hurried medical concoctions, and questionable results, a complicit populace largely falls into line—to its own detriment. Truth be told, the government is very aware of the points being made here. In anticipation of the suffering and death that will be introduced by government-promoted swine flu vaccinations, and recalling the legal troubles resulting from the mess of ’76, legal immunity has been granted to vaccine manufacturers. Free from the consequences of their actions, these companies are now even less inclined to ensure their products are not damaging to gullible, government guinea pigs—starting with 10,000 volunteers who are no doubt anxious to win a Darwin Award. Anticipatory immunity directly implies a knowledge that there will be negative side effects from the vaccine.

To stretch the short supply, it is highly likely that these vaccines will contain adjuvants—added elements to the vaccine that aim to stimulate the recipient’s immune system—such as squalene, a controversial and potentially damaging ingredient that increases the risk of contracting a disease or medical syndrome. Heaven only knows what other ingredients these politicized potions will include.

Untainted science can be a godsend, improving the health and knowledge of mankind. But when scientific research and decisions are directed, managed, and promoted by government, the results can be and often are destructive to life. Historical examples and current events, when coupled together, create a very strong case for refusing to participate in any vaccination scheme organized by the governments of the world. While others may choose to subject themselves to experimental, ill-researched injections, this author prefers to sit on the sidelines and practice alternative methods of maintaining a healthy life and lifestyle.

26 Responses to “Political Science: A Deadly Combination”

  1. Kelly W.
    July 20, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    I will refuse the vaccination if offered to me.

    I have always refused the company-offered flu shot every year in the past, and I will continue to do so.

    I have never had the flu, either!

  2. Amber
    July 20, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    I am not completely against what you are saying. I am wary of anything that is pushed through so quickly. However, the regular annual flu shot offered is a new vaccine every year and they seem to be able to make it without too much trouble. Maybe swine flu is more difficult – I haven’t really researched it, yet.
    I have never gotten a flu shot in my life; and I have always been quite healthy. BUT the entire family got the flu this last year (newborn excluded, thank goodness) and it was so horrible that I think we will be getting the flu shot this year.
    I will be checking a lot of information before we get vaccinated, but what is the government supposed to do? Imagine the public outcry if the swine flu comes back with a vengeance and the government did nothing to try and vaccinate against the disease. This isn’t a black and white situation.

  3. Connor
    July 20, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    However, the regular annual flu shot offered is a new vaccine every year and they seem to be able to make it without too much trouble.

    The variants in the common flu strain are not that drastic, and so the modifications necessary for each year’s new shot are not too difficult. The H1N1 strain, however, (well, a combination of various strains) is a new mixture of strains that was not anticipated, and so production has to start at square one. One of the major hold-ups with the swine flu vaccine is having to grow live cell cultures that have the infectious virus growing in them.

    BUT the entire family got the flu this last year (newborn excluded, thank goodness) and it was so horrible that I think we will be getting the flu shot this year.

    I recommend reading through Dr. Mercola’s articles regarding the flu vaccination before considering getting it. He has a lot of good information and cited articles showing that the CDC admits the flu shot is ineffective and nearly worthless, that they’re loaded with all sorts of nasty toxins and chemicals, and that there are far better (and more healthy/natural) alternatives then getting a vaccination.

    …but what is the government supposed to do?

    Well, since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that the federal government should be involved in health care, vaccination production, and disease control… my answer is simple: nothing. But, that’s politically unacceptable these days in our “gimme, gimme!” society, so we end up with a monstrosity of a bureaucracy dictating what I should put into my body. Thanks, but no thanks…

  4. Doug Bayless
    July 21, 2009 at 5:31 am #

    Well, since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that the federal government should be involved in health care, vaccination production, and disease control… my answer is simple: nothing. But, that’s politically unacceptable these days in our “gimme, gimme!” society, so we end up with a monstrosity of a bureaucracy dictating what I should put into my body. Thanks, but no thanks…

    There’s a quotation (that I like) attributed to Thomas Jefferson that lives on the Internet:

    “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies
    will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

    I’m not sure if that’s the actual quote . . . Wikiquote suggests it may simply be a paraphrase of what he wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

    Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.

    At any rate, Thomas Jefferson seems to have shared some of your thoughtfulness on this topic. :)

  5. Carborendum
    July 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    A relative of mine says that they will be forcing pregnant women especially to become vaccinated because they are going to hide a sterilizing agent into it. This rumor was created in no small part because of the eugenics leanings of our current science czar.

    I’m guessing that most people already practicing contraception or abortion will not be effected. They are already doing their part to reduce the population. Those that are pregnant and willingly carry, are to be sterilized. Hmm. That sounds like a great plan to me.

    We’re already going broke because the decrease in our population growth rate happened to coincide with the generation that has to support the baby-boomers’ medicare and soc. sec. Now, we’re trying to make sure there is not another generation after ours.

    Regardless of who or why — or even if it is true or not, I wouldn’t put it past government ineptitude or design to do such a thing at some point.

  6. Connor
    July 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    Lest anybody think that Carb’s comment is conspiratorial quackery, this article has the details and paints a chilling picture of what upcoming policies might aim to achieve.

  7. Carborendum
    July 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    I can’t believe this!

    I tried to access that link Connor posted. I’m at work. The internet filter blocked it because it is listed as a “pro-life” website.

    This is the same filter that deemed Daniel’s blog “offensive”.

    Does this seem right to you?

  8. Carissa
    July 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    The idea of forced abortion or sterilization immediately made me think of this quote from Dallin H. Oaks:

    The command of loyalty to laws and rulers does not compel a citizen to participate in or submit to a government edict that runs counter to the common consensus of humanity, such as genocide or other cold-blooded murder. Nor should it require a person to violate the fundamental tenets of religious faith. For example, if the current laws permitting abortion (which are highly objectionable) were expanded to requiring abortion in certain instances, an unwilling mother and father who regarded this practice as “one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day” (First Presidency statement of January 1973) would be justified in refusing to observe the law.

    Who would have thought, at the time of this quote, we could actually be confronted with such a thing? Now it doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

  9. Carborendum
    July 21, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    I remember a Joseph Smith prophecy about in the last days only LDS women would be willing to bear children.

    I wonder if something related to this would be the catalyst.

  10. Amber
    July 21, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    Really guys?!? You really think the government is going to try and sterilize women who want to have children? Man, I am glad I don’t live in the fearful/hateful/crazy world of your head.

    Yes, I read (parts of) the link Connor provided. I still don’t think “they” are going to try to forcefully limit population in the United States.

    Usually you guys have some intelligent things to say, but not today.

  11. Connor
    July 21, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    It may not be through forced sterilization, but the call for “population reduction” has been made by a sizable number of world leaders, New World Order proponents, global warming fanatics, etc.. Look at China’s one child policy—a perfect example of an alternative eugenic method of limiting the population.

  12. Carborendum
    July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    Amber,

    I don’t know if “they” will either. Right now it is just a rumor. What I find frightening is that we have people in power who have made public their desire for such practices (you read the link).

    It is such that when a simple rumor is spread, that people actually consider those in charge as being capable of such a thing. If anyone even tried to spread this rumor under Reagan or Carter, it would have been laughed out of existence. Even people who didn’t support those Presidents would have rolled their eyes.

    I didn’t like Carter as a President, but I thought he was a decent guy who really tried. And if it were between Carter, Obama, & McCan — I’d vote for Carter in a heartbeat.

    But with our current leadership (and I’m referring to all three brances now) the rumor is fully accepted by a significant population (look how fast people accepted it here when I merely presented it as a rumor–you yourself said that we are usually an intelligent lot) and only met with healthy skepticism by a HUGE population.

    Those skeptics don’t doubt the motives of those in power, merely their ability to get away with it. Look at yourself. You’re a skeptic. Do you doubt that the current leadership has motives leaning towards forced / unwitting sterilization? Or do you just doubt their ability to do it? Or maybe you believe they want to, but don’t think they’d actually go through with it? What is it?

    Don’t tell me you’re naive neough to believe that our new science czar has turned over a new leaf, and now finds the idea of sterilizing the population abhorrent. If so, please go back and read the whole article.

  13. Amber
    July 22, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Carborendum,

    Short answer. NO – I do not believe the current leadership leans toward any type of involuntary sterilization. Just because people have more “socialist” views than your own does not automatically put them in the group of the godless.

    I can’t honestly speak for our science czar; I don’t know enough about him. I can say that even if he would like to see people voluntarily limit children born; I doubt he would even present an idea of any type of forced sterilization.

    And Connor – I thought about China’s one-child policy. It is a sobering thought. Have you ever seen the movie “Idiocracy”? If you haven’t, don’t – it is full of trash, but the premise is interesting. The idea is that intelligent people stop having children and so after many generations, the general population is pretty dumb. Interesting thought. Anyway, I think that population decrease will happen more voluntarily than through government intervention. A sad story either way.

  14. Justin
    July 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    I’m really glad to read that this topic has gotten us onto the subject of eugenics and population reduction. This is one of the over-arching goals of the secret combinations in control of the governments. Everything these people do stem from their Social-Darwinistic worldview — They feel there are too many humans on the earth and that birth rate needs to be slowed.
    Don’t partake of anything they put out. It will always have this goal in mind. That includes the aforementioned swine-flu vaccine.

  15. Carissa
    July 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Amber,

    Are you aware of the compulsory sterilization programs (yes, here in the United States) that existed from about 1907 to 1963, where over 64,000 people were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation? Some women “were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth)”

    Are you aware of the ruling of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Buck v. Bell (1927) where he upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization? He wrote:

    “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. … three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

    These ideas do not simply exist in the “fearful/hateful/crazy world of [someone’s] head”. There are those who (despite the general unpopularity of such ideas) still believe in and advocate these methods for the greater good of society, the planet, whatever. It is not so far-fetched to think similar legislation and/or action could be re-instigated in response to the right sort of “crisis” (most likely environmental). It is something we should be aware of and on guard against, especially in light of historical precedence.

  16. loquaciousmomma
    July 22, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    Amber: I read the article that Connor referenced and the attached page with governmental rebuttals of the accusations against Holdren. The site has scanned in pages of the textbook being referenced and what is interesting is many of the societal changes he recommends in the textbook to reduce population are already in use. In fact, they are being blamed for such a reduction in births in Italy that the existence of Italians in the future is being threatened.

    The policies I refer to are, for example:

    Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, “All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple.” If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved “marriage” for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women’s liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men.

    (emphasis added)

    And another:

    It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children could easily be based on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated that the larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to be and the less likely they are to realize their potential levels of achievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on the sizes of adopted families would have to be the same.)

    (emphasis added)

    An example of this idea in action in Italy:

    In the early evening many church squares across Italy are full of parents and children. They gather so the many single children can play with each other.

    Asked why she only decided to have one child, Bettina said: “People prefer to just have one so they can give the child everything – the best schools, the best clothes, the best everything.”

    The idea that population needs to be controlled has been appearing in the news more and more lately. It is an opinion whose ‘time has come’, especially with the Obama administration’s support for all things environmental.

    One example :

    “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. That’s why I support the OPT, and I wish the environmental NGOs would follow their lead, and spell out this central problem loud and clear.”

    This was said by Sir David Attenborough, a famous filmmaker in the Uk.

    And this article has a famous environmentalist claiming that the UK must reduce it’s population by 1/2 to be sustainable.

    I know that it might seem like a bunch of hogwash. I am sure that there is no way that the Obama administration is going to implement population control this year. The tapping of people like Holdren, however, does show that this administration has a certain willingness to even consider such ideas. Or, better yet, it shows that the administration is not averse to the idea that population is a valid environmental concern.

    We may not be on the verge of a major and horrific 360 on population control, but we need to be on guard. This Holdren appointment is cause for concern.

  17. Carborendum
    July 22, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    Amber,

    I doubt he would even present an idea of any type of forced sterilization.

    I thought you said you READ the link. He ALREADY presented the idea. He just couldn’t figure out how do do it.

    I never said that socialism and population control were in the same ideology. In fact, I didn’t even bring up the word “socialism” or any derivation of that word in this ENTIRE thread. Why would YOU make that link when I had not, then blame it on me?

    As far as the present leadership wanting to limit children, what do you think abortion-on-demand, and death to botched abortion babies are about? Oh, of course, it is a women’s rights issue.

    Does the name Tom Sawyer mean anything to you?

  18. Daniel
    July 23, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    The majority of sane people laugh with derision and scorn at Al Gore for hyping the supposed problem of global warming, and then claiming that the science is sound and the debate is over.

    This one sentence tells you everything you ever need to know about this blog.

  19. Amber
    July 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    I guess I asked for it when I called Carborendum’s head a fearful/hateful/crazy place. I apologize.
    I know many people support population control in varying forms.
    I do have a problem with educated people passing along very highly suspect rumors just to add fuel to a fire.

  20. loquaciousmomma
    July 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    Amber: I was just as surprised to see that comment #5 was from Carb. I even wondered if someone else was using his name for the fun of it.

    Carb: Wow! You take one step and suddenly you are a mile away…

    It was quite shocking to see you even consider such a leap, even with the whole 180 degree turn on 9/11.

    As far as I am concerned, anything is possible. We know we are in dangerous times, prophecies will be fulfilled, and are already being fulfilled. Life is changing. I suppose putting sterilants into vaccines would fit into the whole lawless-who-cares-about-the law-or-personal-rights attitude the government has shown in the last few years.

    I guess we will have to wait and see…

  21. Connor
    July 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    This article reports that 12,000 children are about to be lined up as swine flu vaccine guinea pigs (emphasis mine):

    Nationwide, 12,000 children will be given the vaccine for the trial, she said. The company should know today whether it will conduct adult trials, too.

    “From a science standpoint, it should work,” Thurman said.

    He said the H1N1 strain spreads more quickly than other influenzas and more than half of the reported cases have been in children. Also, some antiviral drugs don’t work against the swine flu, he said.

    This is why the studies are being allowed to progress more quickly than usual by the federal government.

  22. loquaciousmomma
    July 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    Carb: I hope you know that I was just giving you a good ribbing. I respect you immensely and can see the point you were making, I just thought it out of character for you to even mention something that smacks of conspiracy in such a loud way.

  23. Carborendum
    July 25, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    Amber,

    I would refer you back to comment #12: vis-a-vis believability.

    And actually, you were more correct about my head than you think. I’ve seen too much in my life.

    This particular one is just a rumor (as stated earlier). And I personally put it in the “I wouldn’t put it past them” category (again, as stated earlier). Given the topic of this thread, I figured it was worth discussing.

    I just wanted to get input from others. I think it is believeable enough and serious enough to alert people to keep their eyes and ears open. Sometimes when enough people are alert to the possibility, that alone will prevent it from happening.

    I was hoping for evidence rather than just opinions and speculation either way. But I suppose that’s all any of us have on something like this.

    I guess I was adding fuel to the fire. But that was not my intent.

    Momma,

    Not at all. I dish it out, so I should take it. I wasn’t hurt by anything you said.

    Actually, I’ve always been very open to conspiracies being fact rather than theory. I just want to make sure they really are facts–Otherwise we get thrown around with every wind of doctrine.

    And again, the tower collapse: I said I’m taking a 90, not a 180, remember? I was entertaining the conspiracy for a time. But I’m finding it to be shaky too. I’m still looking.

  24. Josh Williams
    July 26, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    It should be noted that squalene is produced naturally in the cells and bodies of ALL multicellular organisms, including humans. It’s an essential chemical precursor for cholesterols and steroid hormones produced in the body.

    Nearly ALL vaccines contain adjuvants, from those given to young children, to the vaccines for the more common seasonal flu’s- no doubt many of your reader have received at some point. Without them the vaccines would a lot less effective, even at higher doses. I would argue that with adjuvants, the risk of serious side effects is actually REDUCED due to the smaller overall doses of vaccine, though I think the evidence isn’t clear cut in this respect.

    However, I have heard of some studies that tentatively linked squalene in some batches of anthrax vaccines administered to US soldiers, to the so-called “Gulf War Syndrome.”

  25. Lee
    July 28, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    I realize I’m jumping into this dialogue a little late, but I came to your site specifically to see if you had addressed this topic. Kudos! You are way ahead of me.

    In my nearly six decades of life, I have never taken a flu shot. Yes, I have had the flu on a fairly regular basis, once every decade or so. During the episode, it isn’t pleasant, but I feel certain my body has accumulated a great number of healthy antibodies as a result. If I get the H1N1 virus or any other, and it takes me down, then so be it; my time had come.

    However, I will be prepared to return to Texas and secede if our country begins to legislate on an “everyone has to” or anything (besides pay taxes and die).

  26. Connor
    August 20, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Dr. Mercola’s latest article is full of references and commentary supporting my position that legal immunity for vaccine makers will do far more harm than good.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.