Don't take the "vaccine"...
-
FACT: Sec. Sebelius says that children are the most susceptible to H1N1 flu, and should be vaccinated against it. FACT: Oct 8th: It was announced that President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says, “the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.” [Note the carefully constructed PASSIVE phrase by the White House: "the vaccine is not available to them," as opposed to say, a more PROACTIVE and ACCURATE phrase: "have decided not to vaccinate." Why? Because the latter phrase would prompt people to ask why the First Family is withholding consent to vaccinate, while the former makes it falsely appear like the decision not to vaccinate was imposed on Obama. Personally, I've heard thousands of parents refer to their decision not to vaccinate their children. But I've never once heard anyone explain that the "vaccine was not available to them." Does anyone believe a vaccine would not be made "available" to the President's own children?!] In the video below, watch him circumnavigate the question about whether his children will get the juice. Without a teleprompter he is lost, with no ability to think on his feet. At the time he was asked this question (September 20th), surely he knew the unyielding position of Health & Human Services Czar Kathleen Sebelius and the CDC, but note that he says, “My understanding at this point is that……” sputter, stumble, ummm… The position of necessary vaccination — and even the repeated attempts to make the vaccine mandatory — had been communicated well before this point in time, yet he pretends to not understand the position of his own Health Czar and the CDC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KueMZdd1c[^]
-
FACT: Sec. Sebelius says that children are the most susceptible to H1N1 flu, and should be vaccinated against it. FACT: Oct 8th: It was announced that President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says, “the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.” [Note the carefully constructed PASSIVE phrase by the White House: "the vaccine is not available to them," as opposed to say, a more PROACTIVE and ACCURATE phrase: "have decided not to vaccinate." Why? Because the latter phrase would prompt people to ask why the First Family is withholding consent to vaccinate, while the former makes it falsely appear like the decision not to vaccinate was imposed on Obama. Personally, I've heard thousands of parents refer to their decision not to vaccinate their children. But I've never once heard anyone explain that the "vaccine was not available to them." Does anyone believe a vaccine would not be made "available" to the President's own children?!] In the video below, watch him circumnavigate the question about whether his children will get the juice. Without a teleprompter he is lost, with no ability to think on his feet. At the time he was asked this question (September 20th), surely he knew the unyielding position of Health & Human Services Czar Kathleen Sebelius and the CDC, but note that he says, “My understanding at this point is that……” sputter, stumble, ummm… The position of necessary vaccination — and even the repeated attempts to make the vaccine mandatory — had been communicated well before this point in time, yet he pretends to not understand the position of his own Health Czar and the CDC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KueMZdd1c[^]
While this sounds like a PR nightmare in the face of anti vaccination nut jobs, and I'm surprised he was not better prepared for it, it's also entirely possible that they are indeed low risk, and I certainly think you need to be a grade a nut job to think that the president is evil enough to deliberately inject poison into other people's kids, but not cunning enough to have a glib answer ready if he's asked this question.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
FACT: Sec. Sebelius says that children are the most susceptible to H1N1 flu, and should be vaccinated against it. FACT: Oct 8th: It was announced that President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says, “the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.” [Note the carefully constructed PASSIVE phrase by the White House: "the vaccine is not available to them," as opposed to say, a more PROACTIVE and ACCURATE phrase: "have decided not to vaccinate." Why? Because the latter phrase would prompt people to ask why the First Family is withholding consent to vaccinate, while the former makes it falsely appear like the decision not to vaccinate was imposed on Obama. Personally, I've heard thousands of parents refer to their decision not to vaccinate their children. But I've never once heard anyone explain that the "vaccine was not available to them." Does anyone believe a vaccine would not be made "available" to the President's own children?!] In the video below, watch him circumnavigate the question about whether his children will get the juice. Without a teleprompter he is lost, with no ability to think on his feet. At the time he was asked this question (September 20th), surely he knew the unyielding position of Health & Human Services Czar Kathleen Sebelius and the CDC, but note that he says, “My understanding at this point is that……” sputter, stumble, ummm… The position of necessary vaccination — and even the repeated attempts to make the vaccine mandatory — had been communicated well before this point in time, yet he pretends to not understand the position of his own Health Czar and the CDC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KueMZdd1c[^]
Amusingly, the video is not damning at all. Obama states that the high risk groups come first, which doesn't mean just normal kids. He also says that they will get the vaccine when it's considered appropriate. He's basically saying he's not jumping the queue, but neither is he hiding from it. So what ? You'd consider it damning no matter what he said, if he said his kids had been done, you'd call him a liar.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
FACT: Sec. Sebelius says that children are the most susceptible to H1N1 flu, and should be vaccinated against it. FACT: Oct 8th: It was announced that President Obama’s school age daughters have not been vaccinated against the H1N1 flu virus. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says, “the vaccine is not available to them based on their risk.” [Note the carefully constructed PASSIVE phrase by the White House: "the vaccine is not available to them," as opposed to say, a more PROACTIVE and ACCURATE phrase: "have decided not to vaccinate." Why? Because the latter phrase would prompt people to ask why the First Family is withholding consent to vaccinate, while the former makes it falsely appear like the decision not to vaccinate was imposed on Obama. Personally, I've heard thousands of parents refer to their decision not to vaccinate their children. But I've never once heard anyone explain that the "vaccine was not available to them." Does anyone believe a vaccine would not be made "available" to the President's own children?!] In the video below, watch him circumnavigate the question about whether his children will get the juice. Without a teleprompter he is lost, with no ability to think on his feet. At the time he was asked this question (September 20th), surely he knew the unyielding position of Health & Human Services Czar Kathleen Sebelius and the CDC, but note that he says, “My understanding at this point is that……” sputter, stumble, ummm… The position of necessary vaccination — and even the repeated attempts to make the vaccine mandatory — had been communicated well before this point in time, yet he pretends to not understand the position of his own Health Czar and the CDC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KueMZdd1c[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
September 20th
It was not known at that time if the virus would just gradually fizzle out or if it would return with a vengeance of sorts. We now know that it is not fizzling out. A National Emergency proclamation has been signed by the President just this last couple of days ago.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Oct 8th
At that time, there was a huge shortage of that vaccine worldwide. Only now are the distributors getting the vaccines to the clinics and GP surgeries etc. But it takes time to provide all of the clinics and GP surgeries and so on with all of the vaccine supplies their area/district needs. Thus the reason why you see news stories of long queues awaiting deliveries of this vaccine. Whether or not the President's children is or is not in a risk category at that date was irrelevant, and may still be irrelevant today if the provision of the vaccine is not generally available in the Washington DC area. At a suitable time, the vaccine will arrive in Washington DC in such numbers and quantity that the President and his family might indeed be called "hypocrites" if he then choose to deny them the vaccine without good reason. Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
September 20th
It was not known at that time if the virus would just gradually fizzle out or if it would return with a vengeance of sorts. We now know that it is not fizzling out. A National Emergency proclamation has been signed by the President just this last couple of days ago.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Oct 8th
At that time, there was a huge shortage of that vaccine worldwide. Only now are the distributors getting the vaccines to the clinics and GP surgeries etc. But it takes time to provide all of the clinics and GP surgeries and so on with all of the vaccine supplies their area/district needs. Thus the reason why you see news stories of long queues awaiting deliveries of this vaccine. Whether or not the President's children is or is not in a risk category at that date was irrelevant, and may still be irrelevant today if the provision of the vaccine is not generally available in the Washington DC area. At a suitable time, the vaccine will arrive in Washington DC in such numbers and quantity that the President and his family might indeed be called "hypocrites" if he then choose to deny them the vaccine without good reason. Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations.
The way it works is simple 1 - decide on your conspiracy 2 - make any available fact fit the conspiracy, ignoring any that plainly can't be twisted in this manner.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The way it works is simple 1 - decide on your conspiracy 2 - make any available fact fit the conspiracy, ignoring any that plainly can't be twisted in this manner.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
September 20th
It was not known at that time if the virus would just gradually fizzle out or if it would return with a vengeance of sorts. We now know that it is not fizzling out. A National Emergency proclamation has been signed by the President just this last couple of days ago.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Oct 8th
At that time, there was a huge shortage of that vaccine worldwide. Only now are the distributors getting the vaccines to the clinics and GP surgeries etc. But it takes time to provide all of the clinics and GP surgeries and so on with all of the vaccine supplies their area/district needs. Thus the reason why you see news stories of long queues awaiting deliveries of this vaccine. Whether or not the President's children is or is not in a risk category at that date was irrelevant, and may still be irrelevant today if the provision of the vaccine is not generally available in the Washington DC area. At a suitable time, the vaccine will arrive in Washington DC in such numbers and quantity that the President and his family might indeed be called "hypocrites" if he then choose to deny them the vaccine without good reason. Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations. Quote Selected Text
More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations. Quote Selected Text
More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision?
I'd say one of two things 1 - it's bs 2 - most doctors probably know that the odds of this turning into an epidemic are pretty low, and while supplies are low, they'd rather get the money from injecting it into someone else.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision?
I'd say one of two things 1 - it's bs 2 - most doctors probably know that the odds of this turning into an epidemic are pretty low, and while supplies are low, they'd rather get the money from injecting it into someone else.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote: More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision? I'd say one of two things 1 - it's bs
It's only one doctor so far but that number's expected to rise...wait for it...exponentially!
I wish I was as fortunate as fortunate as me
-
Christian Graus wrote:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote: More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision? I'd say one of two things 1 - it's bs
It's only one doctor so far but that number's expected to rise...wait for it...exponentially!
I wish I was as fortunate as fortunate as me
Josh Gray wrote:
It's only one doctor so far but that number's expected to rise...wait for it...exponentially!
ROTFL !!!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Well Henize, I consider that you are "jumping the gun" on your accusations. Quote Selected Text
More than half of doctors and nurses are refusing the new vaccine. They know more about vaccines than anyone here, so how do you explain their intelligent decision?
You go and find some of these medical practitioners, quiz them in a correct and proper manner, then create a report that would include a comprehensive analysis, submit it to us here for a full evaluation then I will respond to the data as interpreted by your report. In other words, if you are going to make allegations on this or any other subject base your allegation on something that can later be tested.