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).

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.”

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.

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.

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…

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?