I was joking around at the possibility of our nation actually having an "Ebola czar" just yesterday, and now Obama has actually appointed one. Let's play along!
Meet Ron Klain, a man who just so happens to have ZERO healthcare experience whatsoever, but worse, among everything else on his wondrous resumé, he was actually a lobbyist for Fannie Mae back during the lead up to the housing bubble bursting — a man who worked to convince Congress that Fannie Mae wasn't doing anything dangerous or putting taxpayers at risk with their activities just before the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And now he's here to tell us all Ebola has little risk and the government has everything under control. Oh GOODY!!!
Again, if this is as real as these government officials have told us it is, and not a total hoax bigger than the Wizard of Oz, this latest development has just officially transitioned our government from a poorly written horror movie to a full-on cartoon.
And here we have the MASTER-EXPERT of everything... SiNeh~
Slate has enthusiastically supported vaccinations and, in particular, establishment talking points and narratives regarding them, as well as a particular focus on dismembering mainstream anti-vaccine views.
In an article titled, "Endangering the Herd," Slate argues that those refusing to receive vaccines should be penalized, and the act of refusing to be vaccinated be criminalized.
The article would claim:
Parents who don’t vaccinate their kids may have the most heartfelt reason in the world: fear for their own children’s safety. But the basis for that fear is simply unfounded, and their decisions are putting other kids directly at risk. The bottom line is that the government’s interest in protecting children from getting the measles should trump parents’ interest in making medical decisions for their kids In an attempt to lend credibility to the article's premise - particularly that fears of vaccinations are unfounded - it cites a fictional television show and repeated assurances from governments that there is no link between vaccines and otherwise unexplained conditions like autism.
Indeed, fictional television shows and statements peddled by verified liars among the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom who brought us decade spanning wars based on now verified lies, form the basis of Slate's notion that those who fail to receive vaccines produced and distributed by big-pharmaceutical corporations like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), should be penalized. GSK alone, has been convicted multiple times in courtrooms around the world of multibillion dollar bribery scandals and found guilty of and otherwise engaged in other immense improprieties.
Image: GSK, one of several producers of the MMR vaccine, has been caught once again amid a massive, multibillion dollar bribery scandal, this time in China. Literally convicted criminals, why would any rational human being inject into their bodies anything produced by this corporation?
In one instance, when Chinese authorities began investing a nationwide multibillion dollar bribery racket run by GSK top executives, GSK formed teams to disrupt, bribe, and otherwise confront law enforcement authorities in an attempt to obstruct their investigation.
Criminality, upon criminality.
GSK has been accused and convicted of doing likewise in both Europe and the United States, yet they are still in business - a business that includes producing the very vaccines Slate believes people should be penalized for refusing to take.
Why would any rational human being allow themselves to be injected by something produced by such a corporation - a corporation literally convicted of criminality, fraud, and bribery? If GSK can bribe hundreds if not thousands of doctors and healthcare workers around the world to endorse their products, how difficult would it be to bribe writers at Slate who literally write for money?
Big-Pharma, not Activists, are Responsible for the Growing Mistrust of Vaccines
The debate isn't ultimately about the science of vaccines, but rather a lack of trust of those charged with producing, monitoring the safety of, and distributing vaccines. The false narrative of science versus conspiracy theorists is peddled by the media, the government, and the corporations that hold influence over both because a narrative focusing on the wisdom of entrusting criminals and mass murderers with our health is an open-and-shut case.
Such a conclusion would result in the ditching of big-pharma's vaccines and seeking alternative solutions to immunization, vaccine production and distribution, and overall accountability for healthcare. This would in turn result in the decentralization of healthcare and pharmaceutical production, breaking up the unwarranted wealth and influence of big-pharma and those throughout the government and media that have enriched themselves protecting this monopoly. Clearly this is an outcome many in the media, government, and across the board rooms of big-pharmaceutical corporations across the Western World will fight fanatically to prevent.
For the anti-vaccine movement - it may be wiser to focus on these aspects of the debate rather than be drawn into the false paradigm the media is trying to superimpose upon the issue. It may even be wise to not use the term "anti-vaccine movement," and instead make it an anti-big-pharma movement.
Slate - were it anything other than pages for rent - would focus more on who is responsible for the vast mistrust the public has for big-pharmaceutical corporations and the governments they have verifiably bribed, lobbied, and in some cases, directly control - rather than focus on rational people who do not trust this vast concentration of wealth, influence, and control over human health.
In a television interview with the BBC just four days before the referendum John McTernan, a former adviser to Tony Blair said, "It's important to remember that about a fifth of the electorate, that will be about a quarter of the total turn-out, have voted already. They have voted by postal vote. Those postal votes are running very strongly towards 'no'. There is a whole bank of votes in."
EDINBURGH, October 04 (RIA Novosti), Mark Hirst – Police in Scotland will formally investigate allegations that anti-Scottish independence campaigners breached electoral law during the referendum held on September 18.
"We can confirm that Crown counsel has instructed Police Scotland to commence an investigation into alleged breaches of Schedule 7, Paragraph 7, of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013," a statement issued on Saturday by the Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution service reads.
The allegations relate to comments made by Ruth Davidson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament and leader of the Scottish Conservatives, in which she appeared to know the general results of postal votes arising from "sample opening" of ballot boxes.
Postal vote opening sessions are permitted before the formal poll is conducted to verify signatures and dates of birth against records held by the local Returning Officer. Agents for the two campaigns were allowed to monitor these sessions, but it is a criminal offense, punishable with up to a year's imprisonment if found guilty, to communicate any information witnessed during the sample opening sessions.
In a television interview with the BBC shortly after the formal poll closed Davidson said "we've been incredibly encouraged by the results [of the postal vote]," implying the Scottish Conservative leader knew the outcome of the postal votes before the first formal results had been announced.
In another BBC interview just four days before the referendum John McTernan, a former adviser to Tony Blair said, "It's important to remember that about a fifth of the electorate, that will be about a quarter of the total turn-out, have voted already. They have voted by postal vote. Those postal votes are running very strongly towards 'no'. There is a whole bank of votes in."
McTernan told RIA Novosti he had not been contacted by Police adding, "No reason to believe free speech is a crime."
According to The Herald newspaper, Davidson has been contacted by Police with the paper quoting a Conservative Party source who said there was, "no suggestion she was accused of doing anything wrong at this stage."
The independence referendum, which took place on September 18, saw a turnout of 84.59 percent. Scotland has chosen to stay in the United Kingdom with 44.7 percent of Scots having voted in support of independence and 55.3 percent having voted against.