Re: Forwarded from seattlepi.com: 1918 killer flu virus to be tested

[Guest guest]

Technically, the term sacrifice should not be used for

the recipients of vaccines who either die or are

permanently damaged from them. If we were in a strict

business model, the correct term would be " shrinkage " ,

but since this is a social service program the correct

term is " allowable loss " .

The problem is the CDC tries to portray itself as

safeguarding the public health, when in truth their

primary mission is the erradication of disease. Since

a great many neurological conditions and deaths from

toxic exposure are not disease, they do not concern

the people in Atlanta.

Looked at another way, when blight threatens the

Florida citrus crop, they willingly burn thousands of

acres of trees to stop it. When the Chinese bark

beetles were found to be coming into our country in

untreated pallets, whole streets of trees in Chicago

and other cities were cut down and burned. And when

mad cow disease threatened Great Britain, they

slaughtered tens of thousands of animals to stop it.

Our children fall into that category.

Re: Forwarded from seattlepi.com: 1918 killer flu

virus to be tested

Posted by: " egran03 " egran03@... egran03

Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:04 am (PST)

From development and manufacturing through to

administration, vaccines necessitate the sacrifice and

in some cases mutilation of living things - beit

sacrificing live monkeys in the case of early polio

vaccines, lab mice, vegetation (veggies are being

altered genetically to be vaccines), aborted fetuses

whose cells are enslaved forever and forced to live

perpetually to grow live viruses for vaccines, and of

course there are the expendable children whose normal

lives are sacrificed in the name of the greater good.

Yep. Lots of sacrificing going on.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Whether it's allowable loss, or shrinkage, or sacrifice, or collateral

damage, the expeditious consumption of the health and lives of

children does not take place in a vacuum. The public health agencies

and pharma only reflect back to us our own values, I am afraid. What

can one say about the value of children in our culture when one out of

four pregnancies end in abortion? " Allowable losses " of our children

is ok as long as it is in the abstract: someone else's anonymous child

or even one's own anonymous unborn. The problem arises because my

damaged son, or your sacrificed daughter is not an abstraction.

Rationalizations depend on abstractions.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Lenny

>

> Technically, the term sacrifice should not be used for

> the recipients of vaccines who either die or are

> permanently damaged from them. If we were in a strict

> business model, the correct term would be " shrinkage " ,

> but since this is a social service program the correct

> term is " allowable loss " .

>