I'll put it first this time!
My source is: http://www.glastonburyradio.net/new/new ... admore=126
I know nothing about this site's political stance & I can't seem to find any further Pro's or Con's about this so I'm posting it here for further discussion.
If you can point me to fact or myth on this, please do.

US judge rules against compulsory vaccinations
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 - For Immediate Release:

30 years after compulsory vaccination became US Law:

US Court issues an injunction to stop it and to hold the the government and drug companies responsible for reactions.

A Preliminary Injunction to stop mandatory vaccinations has been issued in the United States District Court of New Jersey. This comes after a federal lawsuit opposing forced vaccines was filed in that court by Tim Vawter, pro se attorney, on July 31st with the federal government as defendant. When the judge signs the Preliminary Injunction, it will stop the federal government from forcing anyone in any state to take flu vaccine against their will. It will also prevent a state or local government from forcibly vaccinating anyone, and forbid any person who is not vaccinated from being denied any services or constitutional rights. Vawter's filings included a Complaint, and several pages of evidentiary Exhibits.

Vawter's legal papers have been written not only for filing in federal court, but additionally so they can be looked at by activists around the world for ideas on filing lawsuits in their own countries to help stop forced vaccinations. Vawter believes that as the truth of the dangers of flu vaccines continues to become known, banning the forced use of them will eventually succeed on a worldwide basis. He cautions people to avoid fear and keep themselves focused on the task of blocking forced vaccination.

Preliminary Injunction will immediately halt mandatory vaccinations in the U.S.

The Court, having heard the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and read the papers in its support, states in the Preliminary Injunction that it appears the federal government has engaged in some amount of negligence with regards to failure to properly investigate the safety of the flu vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009-2010, and the evidence submitted does warrant a more thorough investigation into the safety of the flu vaccines.

The Court ordered that the government shall be forbidden from forcing any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice. The government will not allow any state or local government, or any party, to force any person to be required to take any influenza vaccination against that person's free will and free choice.

U.S. government sued for gross negligence and violation of the Constitution
In his Cause of Action, Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by funding and promoting flu vaccines that are proven to be dangerous and manufactured with little oversight. The vaccines scheduled for use in late 2009 and 2010 contain heavy metals including thimerosal mercury, which have been proven to cause autism in children with lowered immune systems, and other dangerous and toxic ingredients. The federal government has stated it will force these flu vaccines onto the American public against their will, under a document signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

He further charged that the vaccine makers stand to earn billions of dollars selling vaccines, and are already spending tens of millions advertising a "Phase 6 Pandemic" that the evidence shows does not really exist. The federal government has not required the World Health Organization (WHO) to show evidence of such a pandemic. There has been no collection of facts, sworn testimony, witnesses being questioned, hearings being held, or lie detector tests being given when preposterous statements have been made. The WHO declared a massive "Phase 6 Influenza Pandemic", even though only a few hundred people worldwide had so far died of this swine flu virus, and when far more people die each year of regular flu.

Vawter noted there is a preponderance of evidence to show that the federal government so poorly trained its employees that they eagerly agreed with the unsubstantiated claims of the WHO in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Forced vaccination would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the government to enter homes and force people to be vaccinated, or to forcibly remove people to another location for vaccination. It would also violate Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights by depriving people of liberty without due process of law.

Vawter charged that the federal government has engaged in gross negligence by failing to properly investigate factual evidence submitted by esteemed medical professions over many years which proves flu vaccines have caused serious damage to people. The CDC has stated that thimerosal mercury is being used in the new flu vaccines being prepared.

The government has failed to investigate profiteering.. Billions of dollars in vaccine sales can cause organizations to falsify threats so as to cause unwarranted public hysteria leading to forced vaccinations.

The government is guilty of gross negligence because its employees failed to properly investigate the release of a case of live swine flu virus. One of the main companies the government deals with, Baxter Vaccines, was apparently involved in the transporting of live bird flu virus that was released on a public train earlier this year. A lab technician with the Swiss National Center for Influenza in Geneva had traveled to Zurich to collect eight ampoules, five of which were filled with the H1N1 swine flu virus. However, failure of the dry ice in their container allowed pressure to build up, and the ampoules exploded as the train was pulling into a station.

The highly reputable UK newspaper "the Telegraph" reported on July 2nd that flu vaccines tested on homeless people caused twenty-one of them to die.
Vawter charged there is a preponderance of evidence to show that government will not provide people being vaccinated with a list of the vaccine ingredients and possible negative side effects before they are vaccinated. Most of the public will not know this flu vaccine contains thimerosal mercury.

Vawter submitted an Order to force the government to publish vaccine ingredients and side effects, and to give this information to everyone who takes a flu vaccine, and do so at least 3 days prior to their vaccination. A denial of this order would violate Plaintiff's rights to demand the government obey the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring it to engage in freedom of speech. The First Amendment not only allows a citizen to have freedom of speech himself, but it allows a citizen to demand his government engage in freedom of speech when it is promoting the use of such as these vaccinations to the public.

The government proclamation stating a person cannot sue for any damages he receives from the flu vaccine, completely bypasses the congress and the court system in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution which grants the right to sue to recover for damages. Vawter submitted an Order to deem unconstitutional any proclamation, rule or similar law that forbids people from suing for damages resulting from the vaccines of 2009 and 2010.

Robert O. Young, Ph.D., D.Sc.

Founder of 'THE NEW BIOLOGY' ®
Creator of the 'SCIENCE OF ALKALINE
LIVING'™ for Health.

This is why there are NO vaccine manufactures int the US. We must send to Europe for vaccines where the manufacturer is protected from lawsuits

This is great news.

In Canada, not even the health care workers are obligated to take vaccines.

So the author made the whole thing up?? The original article does mention that the Judge had yet to sign, and it's not completely clear whether they specified Preliminary injunction to the court clerk...

So this guy is basically an anti-vaxer nutjob.

Very nice, lol.

Oh, and for the curious, a New Jersey judge does not have the power to change federal
gov't policy. No matter what a "district court judge" says, the rules are the rules.

And there's a good reason for them, too. When your bad decisions endanger other people
then your bad decisions are no longer just your decision to make. It becomes other
peoples' decision too, which translates to legislation. Choosing not to get vaccinated
means you can spread disease to others. Suddenly you have the risk of a mutation that
effects even those that choose to get vaccinated.

There's no 4th amendment problem here. Nobody is breaking into your home and forcing
you to get vaccinated. They'll just prevent you from doing stuff like sending your kids
to school, or lock you into a quarantine zone to prevent spreading the illness. Again,
your 4th amendment rights end when they endanger the rights of others.

Ex: You have a right to carry a firearm, but if you start shooting it around (whether
you hit someone or not) then you're going to lose that right and many many others.

Want to avoid all of this? Easy. Go get yourself and your kids vaccinated, stop spreading
disease to others, stop being a superstitious conspiracy nut and take some danged
responsibility for your beliefs.

I don't know anything about the actual law, since I don't live in the US, but if the above is true then "mandatory vaccination" strikes me as a misnomer.

I heard that vaccine ingredients are kept secret. If that's true, I don't see how they can justify making vaccination even remotely mandatory. We're just supposed to trust the government, the one that's never lied to anyone before, right?

And remember... the official explanation for 9/11 (Bin Laden and co-conspirators) is itself a conspiracy theory. (too many people these days automatically associate "conspiracy theorist" with "nutcase" or some such)

That's because it is. People don't exactly go door to door w/ a needle. If you plan to send
your kids to school you will need to get them vaccinated with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

And probably this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPT_vaccine

If you plan to travel you may need others. In some states you no longer need DPT.

Here's the NY dept of health's page on the subject:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/immunization/

Some states may have other specific requirements, ie:
http://www.lsc.k12.in.us/page283.aspx

They have a few more listed. There is an exemption law that allows people with
medical conditions or religious beliefs to exempt out of getting vaccinated.



Heard from whom?

The wiki link does a good job of explaining the ingredients.

If you want a more comprehensive list go to:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_cir ... _ii_pi.pdf

It has a full list of ingredients at the top. Notice it has no preservative, meaning
no Thiomersal (the ingredient at the top of the scare tactics list).

For a more general list, go to:
http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_ingredients.htm

Quite clearly there is no secret gov't cover-up here.



Here's the distinction: Evidence.

Claims require supporting evidence. Not "well it could be" or "well it looks like" and frankly,
I'm not even a fan of "eye-witness" testimony (which has a long history of being wrong).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Most people that claim to have evidence don't
really understand what the word means. A theory is not evidence. Conjecture is not evidence.
Another claim (unsubstantiated) is not evidence.

Now I don't really care what people believe, per sae, what concerns me is how easily people
accept claims without ever once asking critical questions. And you know what? That goes for gov't
claims too. They make a lot of them, and a lot of them are total BS (war on drugs? seriously?)
Private industry does it too. But that doesn't justify throwing out all critical reasoning and
replacing it with fanatical beliefs. If anything it should strengthen our resolve to seek truth,
not to just accept some idiot's version of it.

There is so much crap that you can't believe today. The politicians lie to get elected, the media lies to get ratings, the governement lies to protect self preservation, every religion is the true religion, and some people make up stories just to get attention. Take Rexx for example... Ooops That last remark may be considered smack talk. Sorry.

Which is just even more reason to actually think about these things critically, rather than just assuming that an "anti-opinion" is correct.

Thanks for the replies guys, and please don't turn this into a discussion about conspiracy theory.
I was looking for aditional information, and decided to post it here to see what others knew on the subject.
I thank those that expanded on the subject.

Thing is, I've seen a lot of so-called crackpot theories that seem to have a whole hell of a lot more supporting evidence than the official version of events. What strikes me is peoples' unwillingness to even consider the evidence when the theory itself sounds outrageous. But it sounds like we're really in agreement - critical thinking is extremely important... I would never just believe in something without supporting evidence, but like I said, some of these theories seem very solid... still, that doesn't mean I believe them, but I certainly don't reject or accept the possibility unless the evidence is overwhelming .

Anyhow, I guess we should respect Proton's desire for this not to turn into a discussion about conspiracy theory (might be too late).

I think Rexx looked a lot harder at that stuff than any of the people arguing against him...