CDC H1N1 forced quarantine docs leak

By Project Mayhem - zerohedge.com Source

Created 09/02/2009 - 06:46

Last night Zero Hedge obtained some interesting documents from the CDC web site. They contain blank 'forced quarantine' orders from Iowa and Florida regarding novel H1N1 -- including quarantine to a 'secure detention center'-- which appear to be recent -- dated April 2009. Some may be aware the NIH and CDC just held an H1N1 conference in DC -- August 19-21 2009 -- that focused on 'mass fatality management'. For many, this should be cause for concern. As is becoming clear, our government is quite corrupt. The idea that this same government is now preparing for forced quarantine and mass vaccination should make anyone who has been following recent events shudder. There is something going on here, but governments have not come clean with the public. Why 'secure detention centers' in the U.S. and 'secure vaccination centers' in France if there is nothing to be concerned about? It is becoming increasingly clear that a global mass vaccination campaign is planned -- likely to become mandatory in the 193 WHO member countries, despite serious safety concerns regarding these untested novel H1N1 vaccines, some of which are now known to contain high levels [1] of the deadly adjuvent squalene [2].

Others may be aware that it was only last week that the Massachusetts State Senate passed a law making it a relatively serious crime to refuse a mandatory vaccination or to break a quarantine order. This law also includes rather astounding violations of the 4th Amendment [3], including warrantless searches and seizures of property if deemed necessary in an 'emergency'. This new Massachusetts law also included authorizations for illegal arrest without a warrant [3] and of forced vaccination [3] of the public. But the political activity is not limited to the states. Yesterday Obama held meetings with senior cabinet officials regarding H1N1 [4]'pandemic prepardness' including HHS Secretary Sebelius. So this is not idle speculation. There is something going on here. Either the government knows something we do not, or this is the biggest hype since the dot com bubble.

Although the current H1N1 virus does not have lethal genes yet [6], we have been implicitly promised by the national and global health authorities that novel H1N1 will soon return with such genetic 'upgrades', just as it did in 1918. Here at ZeroHedge, we are expecting a flock of economic black swans soon, and a pandemic -- whether real or hyped -- may be part of this flock. An economic collapse will be no doubt be triggered soon , and it will be convenient for the political elites to blame the collapse on an external factor, such as a pandemic or a war. Furthermore, the fall H1N1 pandemic may be a convenient pretext by which dangerous levels of expanding social control can be established by elites which have proven themselves utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt.

On to the documents.

see original...

Read all

More: Why Won't Healthcare Workers Take The Swine Flu Vaccine?

by Rachel Friedman

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212254207.shtml

Can vaccinations actually fuel pandemics? According to a study released August 26, 2009 by the British Medical Journal, more than half of Hong Kong's healthcare workers surveyed said they would refuse the H1N1 shot, which is not yet available, because they are afraid of side effects and doubt how safe and effective it will be.

More importantly, the study suggested the trend would be repeated worldwide.

"The truth is that vaccines aren't effective, generally carry dangerous side effects, and in many cases actually fuel the spread of pandemics," said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard University trained medical researcher who also holds a Master's Degree in Public Health. "The fact is that most healthcare workers know this, and they don't trust that any swine flu vaccine will do anything but cause more problems and potential harm to the patients they care for."

In Dr. Horowitz's view, vaccines do more harm than good, and are little more than a way for the pharmaceutical companies to profit from epidemics and side effects.

"In April, 2009, the swine flu scare placed the world at high alert thanks to gads of suspicious publicity," Dr. Horowitz said. "Anglo-American officials and Reuters News Service first claimed this was a rapidly spreading combination of the world's scariest flu's – swine, avian and Spanish flu viruses. They were all said to be rolled up in this never-before-seen Mexican pathogen."

The scare, however, seemed to have less substance than volume, as the thousands of U.S. deaths that were predicted never happened, Dr. Horowitz added.

The H1N1 swine flu shot is more of a drug than a vaccine given the list of toxic chemical ingredients causing side effects including Guillain-Barre syndrome, a deadly paralyzing disorder widespread after the 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign." Dr. Horowitz continued.

"Vaccines are an aberration, and the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies have been playing fast and loose with explaining how vaccines immunize people," he said. "Classic immunology draws an important distinction between the terms 'immunize' and 'vaccinate.' By casually substituting 'immunization' for 'vaccination,' the pharmaceutical machine mystifies the masses. More accurately, vaccinations cause hyper-sensitizations.

Simply put white blood cell body guards begin to attack far more than desired. Myriad auto-immune diseases and childhood injuries result from vaccinations. However, pseudo-scientists and ignorant health officials confuse this matter with the 'immunization' misnomer. Similarly, they repeat the myth that vaccines, not improvements in hygiene and nutrition, caused the great reduction, or alleged elimination, of deadly human diseases."

Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz is an internationally known authority in the overlapping fields of public health, behavioral science, emerging diseases, and natural healing. He is also a Harvard University trained medical researcher and expert in public health.

More: H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Iowa Contemplates "Forced Confinement" in a "Quarantine Facility" By Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research, September 4, 2009

And more: The International Finance Facility for Immunisation commiting genocide

Food stamp list soars past 35 million: USDA:

More than 35 million Americans received food stamps in June, up 22 percent from June 2008 and a new record as the country continued to grapple with the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

http://snipurl.com/rm3gu

Backfiring ironies: Taliban's Tank-Killing Bombs Came from U.S.

Taliban's Tank-Killing Bombs Came from U.S., Not Iran:

The increased damage to NATO tanks by Taliban forces has come from anti-tank mines provided by the United States to the jihadi movement in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Is the Taliban on the U.S. Gov. Payroll?

From CLG: Is the Taliban on the U.S. Gov. Payroll? --Source: Taliban takes as much as 20% of development aid awarded to contractors 03 Sep 2009

A portion of American taxpayer dollars slated for development projects in Afghanistan is alleged to end up in the hands of the Taliban, the GlobalPost reports. The United States Agency for International Development is investigating if its funds are being used by contractors to pay the Taliban for protection – from itself. GlobalPost reporter Jean MacKenzie writes, "the Taliban allegedly receives kickbacks from almost every major contract that comes into the country. The arrangements are at times highly formalized and, as GlobalPost spelled out, the Taliban actually keeps an office in Kabul to review major deals, determine percentages and conduct negotiations."

From Stop-NATO:

03.09.2009 - Andrei KONUROV - Strategic Culture Foundation

US Objectives in Afghanistan [my emphasis]

Being the key player having influence over the August, 2009 elections in Afghanistan, the US has not demonstrated its preferences explicitly, but there is a widespread impression that Washington no longer trusts H. Karzai. The reason is not that he did anything wrong or defied the US control. Simply protégés should never be permanent least they gain positions strong enough to feel independent or the forces having no obligations to the US overthrow the pro-US corrupt regime, popular support for which is rapidly evaporating. It is an indication of the above that the so-called “orange” technologies are currently resurfacing in Afghanistan. On August, 29 several hundred residents of the provinces where Karzai was far ahead of competitors in the electoral race held a rally in Kabul in support of the current opposition leader and former Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, an ethnic Tajic. The event was led by a group of people known as the public opinion champions among the Pashtun population. They called Abdullah not to capitulate and to go on struggling against the incumbent whom they likened to a trapped beast. Abdullah clearly felt re-energized by the expressions of support and – quite predictably – declared he would not recognize the official election results as they had been rigged.

Generally, it is normal for a politician determined to ascend to power to cite election irregularities ahead of the completion of the official count. Nor is it unnatural for people to gather to express support for their candidate. Yet, Afghanistan is a country where voters hardly ever favor candidates not belonging to their own ethnic groups, and the fact that Pashtuns traveled a long way to Kabul to express solidarity in front of TV cameras with an ethnic Tajic is highly suggestive of the involvement of foreign puppeteers in the process. Toppling Karzai is not necessarily a part of the agenda of the latter, and chances are they are still ready to deal with him. The plan can be limited to making Karzai realize to what extent he is vulnerable, insecure, and dependent on the coalition forces deployed in Afghanistan.

The main question is not whether Karzai is going to be ousted or just weakened. The circumstance of fundamental importance is that – contrary to Washington's persistent claims - the US does not want a credible central government in Afghanistan. Establishing a strong pro-US regime in the country would take its direct occupation with the pouring of forces and money into it in quantities much greater than what is currently being allocated or what the US and its allies can potentially afford. It is clear that no strong pro-US regime can rise in Afghanistan naturally due to the population's dislike for the US. Contrary to that, the emergence of an anti-American regime based on an alliance of tribes united by common opposition to the occupation appears to be a realistic scenario. Therefore, the option best for the US is Afghanistan having no serious central authority whatsoever and a government in Kabul totally dependent on Washington. The inability of such government to control most of Afghanistan's territory would not be regarded as a major problem by the US as in fact Washington would in certain ways be able to additionally take advantage of the situation.

The US objectives in Afghanistan should be assessed with a healthy amount of realism. It is no secret that, having occupied the country, the US has practically no control over its territory outside the coalition's military bases, but is that really seen as a problem in Washington? The US never intended to maintain its military presence in every Afghan village. Control over the territory of Afghanistan is seen in Washington as something completely different. Information about the country is being collected by satellites, drones, and an extensive network of agents, while the US forces do not have to be present literally in every part of Afghanistan facing the risks of sudden attacks. Unlike Hitler's Germany, the US harbored no plans to move its citizens to inhabit the conquered space where it would permanently have to protect them from the Talibs. The US objectives concerning the Afghan territory are a lot more sophisticated.

The US has deployed 19 military bases in Afghanistan and Central Asian countries since the war began in October, 2001. These bases function autonomously from the surrounding space, are networked by airlifts, and get supplies from outside of Afghanistan, also mostly by air. The system of bases makes it possible for the US to exert military pressure on Russia, China, and Iran. As for Russia, this is a manifestation of the long-term US geopolitical strategy aimed at separating Russia from seas and locking it up in the Eurasian inland. More advanced phases of the strategy envision the US advancement deep into Eurasia, the gaining of positions in it that would weaken Russia's control over its territory, and – eventually – the elimination of the Russian statehood in Siberia and the Far East. Considering that in any war the US mainly relies on its air force, the above strategy can be implemented with the help of a network of isolated bases and does not require control over the entire territory of Afghanistan.

Still, a major war is an extreme option, and the US has much more sophisticated instruments at its disposal. It skillfully exports chaos to other countries and regions thus creating such situations in them that normal economic activities and development become impossible. As a result, financial resources and intellectual workforce from the regions are forced to flee and seek safer places, which mean the US in practice. The corresponding financial inflow partially offsets the US trade balance deficit and prevents the US dollar from collapsing, while the immigration of intellectual workforce to the US makes it possible for the country to maintain its technological leadership globally.

The US does not need a final victory over the Talibs. Despite their widely advertized ferocious conflict, the US and the Talibs manage to coexist quite successfully in Afghanistan. The US is demonstrating its presence and building up the infrastructure it is based on, as well as collecting intelligence data. In the meantime the Talibs are attacking police stations, robbing convoys with humanitarian aid – and also demonstrating their presence. The Talibs do perpetrate terrorist acts targeting the US and NATO servicemen. The US responds by launching efficient raids which occasionally include incursions into Pakistan and thus broaden the scope of the drama. In general, the US and the Talibs in Afghanistan are not all that incompatible.

With Washington's non-intervention if not downright encouragement, the Talibs are destabilizing Central Asia and the Uyghur regions of China as well as seek inroads into Iran. This is the explanation behind the recent upheaval of the Uyghur separatism and to an extent behind the activity of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Regional instabilities both are bred by the US presence in Afghanistan and adjacent countries and serve to justify prolonging the presence indefinitely. It is increasingly clear that the US is not going to withdraw from Afghanistan to which Obama's Administration is currently shifting forces from Iraq. There is permanent consensus in the ranks of the US establishment that the US presence in Afghanistan must continue.

Russia should not and evidently will not watch idly the developments at the southern periphery of the post-Soviet space. In Moscow there is a growing awareness of the need to integrate Central Asia into Russia's initiatives. Quite possibly Russia's assistance to Central Asian Republics in handling their water supply problems will be the main factor drawing them into Moscow’s orbit.