Re: The town meeting on Anthrax/ results

February 24, 1999

and the list:

Before we all get upset over Tim's letter on the town meeting, it

would be best to take a breather here. So much other information

in that post turned out to be inaccurate that everything in it should

be carefully checked before we get alarmed over any of it.

Basically, I am recalling the post Tim sent to me on the meeting.

It could mislead new people to even have it in the archives. I am

especially upset that he said Lori had documents on mid east ownership

of Bioport, when clearly she DID NOT.

Even now I sit on information, sometimes for months before putting it

on our website just because I can't prove it is true, and don't know

the source well. When something that comes to the list is wrong, all

we can do is say so and go back to checking the facts. I don't yet

know of any change to the Nueremberg code and welcome a search for the

facts on that part of his letter.

Gretchen

February 24, 1999

I have a question about this. After reading that law that was repealed,

I had been under the impression that it was infact repealing a previous

law that had allowed testing of drugs, for defense against biological

weapons, on military without their consent.

So am I to understand correctly in fact I have this backwards, that in

fact this amendment makes it (as of Nov.98) legal to test drugs out on

the military without their consent?

That to me is totally totally outrageous! How could anyone vote for

such thing with a clear conscious.

That would mean legally that the current vaccination plan is indeed

perfectly legal under U.S. law even if the vaccine is proved to fall

under the FDA's definition of an experimental vaccine or even if it is

proven to be dangerous. It wouldn't matter because its all pefectly

legal.

Screw, Clinton and his stupid affairs...if this amendment has made

experimenting on human beings without their consent legal, then I would

say it would definatly fall under the high-crimes and treason category.

When do we get to see this list of congressmen/women and senators who

voted for this?

All of us should contact every one of the bastards and ask them how they

could do such a thing.

Has any motion been made to take this amendment to the supreme court?

What legal organizations would perhaps be willing to take on such a

case? Any suggestions anyone?

Personally I'm sick and tired of our government always reacting swiftly

and often violently with a " Holier then Thou " attitude when another

country (especially 3rd world countries) violates international law.

However every time our own country grossly violates international law,

our government just sweeps it under the rug in the name of killing

commies, dictators, or patriotism.

Now if I am incorrect about the nature of that amendment, then please

set me straight before I go off spreading this as fact.

G.

> There was a great deal of discussion about the repeal of the

> protection in Nov. 98 of a portion of the Nuremberg Code by our

> Congress, just one month before " The Big Experiment " was announced by

> Cohen in December 1998. The code prohibited the use of any

> American, civilian or military, for the purpose of any experiment of any

> kind.

> The repeal allows the use of both now for biological,

> pharmaceutical or agricultural experiments and prohibits either the

> military or it's contractors from being held liable or accountable. Jim

> O'Niel has the list of the congressmen and how they voted on this

> issue. You need to find out which way your representative voted on

> this very important and historical change of protection. Contact Jim

> O'Niel at Satterleesigns@... and find out how your local

> congressman voted so you can remove this congressman from office at the

> next election.

February 24, 1999

anna nim wrote:

>

> From: anna nim <anna_nim@...>

>

> and the list:

>

> Before we all get upset over Tim's letter on the town meeting, it

> would be best to take a breather here. So much other information

> in that post turned out to be inaccurate that everything in it should

> be carefully checked before we get alarmed over any of it.

>

> Basically, I am recalling the post Tim sent to me on the meeting.

> It could mislead new people to even have it in the archives. I am

> especially upset that he said Lori had documents on mid east ownership

> of Bioport, when clearly she DID NOT.

>

> Even now I sit on information, sometimes for months before putting it

> on our website just because I can't prove it is true, and don't know

> the source well. When something that comes to the list is wrong, all

> we can do is say so and go back to checking the facts. I don't yet

> know of any change to the Nueremberg code and welcome a search for the

> facts on that part of his letter.

>

> Gretchen

>

Ah ok. I (or maybe Tim) was getting this confused with the amendment

made on Nov.18, 1997 (Public Law 105-85 105th Congress) which is posted

on: http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/index.htm

From my amateur legal interpretation, it seems to say that that it is

illegal to test any experimental drug or agent on civillian or military

personnel without informed consent from the individuals that the testing

is to be done on.

From the post about the town meeting, it sounded like their was some law

congress passed to repeal this amendment or that I was just interpreting

this amendment totally wrong. I had a assumed that the matter was

dicussed heavily and in detail at the town meeting which was why it

upset me. But I wanted to be sure to have that information clarified

before spreading this information. From how I understand the Tim's

post, it is not the actual Nuremburg Code that are alleged to have been

repealed (which probably only the U.N. could do) but just U.S. laws that

were passed in Nov.98 which directly conflict against International Law.

I would appreciate it if Tim, yourself, or anyone else at the meeting

could clarify that matter. Otherwise we're (or at least I) wouldn't be

any better then the govt. spreading all kinds of misleading or false

statements.

What ever info we post on here needs to be either backed by fact or by

at least very strong circumstantial evidence that beckons to be

researched further.

Thanks for the heads up Gretchen!

G.

February 24, 1999

I have been reading on this list for a month now. I tell all my shipmates who

will listen about the potential hazards of this vaccine. They are so

surprised and shocked when I tell them about all I have read about this on my

computer and the actual stories that people write in about. They think this

stuff happened so long ago. I tell them it is happening now. I want to pass

out this info on my ship. I just need to print it up (no printer). I don't

think it's fair that some of these people are getting this shot and don't even

know what it is capable of doing to them--heck, the people who are pushing it

don't even know what it can do to us. I'm just trying to educate people, so

they have a fair advantage. With the govt screaming " it's safe, it's safe " ,

sometimes, people believe that because they just don't know the military would

do this to people and not even think twice about it. It's time they knew that

the govt doesn't take as good of care of their people as everyone once

thought. I know my opinion has changed...

February 24, 1999

I feel the same way!!!

February 25, 1999

,

The best thing you can do is go to your local college or university and print

all

the information you want. Most internet stations are open to the public.

Good Luck

Traci

Elements43@... wrote:

> From: Elements43@...

>

> I have been reading on this list for a month now. I tell all my shipmates who

> will listen about the potential hazards of this vaccine. They are so

> surprised and shocked when I tell them about all I have read about this on my

> computer and the actual stories that people write in about. They think this

> stuff happened so long ago. I tell them it is happening now. I want to pass

> out this info on my ship. I just need to print it up (no printer). I don't

> think it's fair that some of these people are getting this shot and don't even

> know what it is capable of doing to them--heck, the people who are pushing it

> don't even know what it can do to us. I'm just trying to educate people, so

> they have a fair advantage. With the govt screaming " it's safe, it's safe " ,

> sometimes, people believe that because they just don't know the military would

> do this to people and not even think twice about it. It's time they knew that

> the govt doesn't take as good of care of their people as everyone once

> thought. I know my opinion has changed...

>

February 25, 1999