While these doctors state that smallpox vaccinations are dangerous, they are also clear that the threat of bio-attacks is slim and that even if there is bio-attack, it can be readily contained and mass vaccinations thus are not justified.
Dr Mack -- asking, "What do we expect if there were a terrorist introduction?" - concludes: "I would expect a small number of cases. I don't think suicide dissemination is a very likely possibility because of the severity of the disease. I think that airborne spread would be relatively inefficient and I don't think many cases would occur."
Informed Consent & Lack of Logic
The National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC) maintains that Section 304 of the Homeland Security Act is the "fulfillment of a federal plan in development for several years to allow public health officials to force vaccination and medical treatment on Americans without their informed consent while removing all accountability from drug companies and those who participate in enforcement of the policy."(13)
The legal doctrine of "informed consent" requires that a person who is being subjected to any medical procedure be informed of the nature and risks of that procedure so that s/he can weigh the risks against the benefits and decide whether to consent to allowing the physician to carry out the procedure.
Medical procedures, including vaccinations, involve some type of intrusion on the body, as well as various risks. Without informed consent, any medical procedure is actually technically a battery. In civil law, battery involves intentionally "harmful or offensive" touching of any part of the body. In criminal law, battery involves "unlawful application of force to the person of another."
NVIC states that "a voluntary decision about whether to take the risk has been the centerpiece of bioethics ever since the Nuremberg Code was adopted after World War II and the doctrine of informed consent was introduced into U.S. case law in 1957."
Two major hospitals have already refused to vaccinate their employees because "the risk of dangerous side effects of the vaccine and inadvertent transmission to patients outweighs the remote threat of an attack with a virus."(14) The Boston Globe reported that the decisions "underscore the reluctance of some health workers to return to a decades-old vaccine known for its serious side effects. In rare instances, the vaccine has caused life-threatening cases of encephalitis and some deaths."
''There is a lack of logic to the current proposal,'' said Dr. Richard Wenzel, chairman of the department of internal medicine at Virginia Commonwealth. ''If our government in all its intelligence thinks smallpox exists in enemy hands, why would we creep up on that policy? We would rush to vaccinate everybody right now.''(15)
Military Intervention
The MEHPA provides for military intervention. According to one news report: "The Bush administration is taking initial steps to plan for a potential military role in enforcing a massive quarantine, if smallpox or another highly contagious virus were to break out somewhere in the United States."(16) Remarkably, according to this report: "The possibility of a biological attack on the United States is receiving increased attention as the nation contemplates war against Iraq, which experts fear may have 'weaponized' smallpox, anthrax or other biowarfare agents."
This report also states that "some federal officials, public health analysts and national security experts anticipate a large-scale quarantine would almost surely incite public panic and could require the use of federal troops to restore order."
How ironic.
The Bush Administration says it is going to war with Iraq in order to ensure our safety, but experts fear that Saddam may counterattack with bio-weapons, which means we must forcibly inoculate several million people here with a dangerous vaccine, causing mass panic that will require restoring order with the military.
This surely is the way to make America safe.
Yesterday I, along with several other members of the ad hoc Broward Bill of Rights Defense Coalition, met with a County Commissioner here in Broward County to discuss passing a resolution asking for the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act. This Commissioner told me that she was ready to give up the Bill of Rights in exchange for safety. She felt we were in grave danger. As an example of what she would accept, she told me that an airport search was "an unreasonable search and seizure."
Search and seizure law is immensely complex and the "rules" for what is a reasonable search vary according to the context. Airport searches of persons entering the boarding area have been deemed constitutional since 1973, as long as the intrusiveness is limited by the administrative need (which is, in this case, flight safety) and the passenger is able to avoid search by electing not to fly. Searches that are minimally intrusive and intended to protect passengers are not violations of the Fourth Amendment. More importantly, we do not give up ANY individual rights by consenting to an airport search. (I am not discussing reports of excessively intrusive and embarrassing public searches that have occurred since 9/11, which, in my opinion, are unreasonable as well as unnecessary.)
Cont ...