Monday, September 07, 2009

DPH Commissioner Auerbach WANTS All to Be Vaccinated ...

... but he is hesitating because of "ethical, legal and practical issues." Under new "emergency" regulations passed in August by the Public Health Council (under Auerbach's leadership), all health facility employees in Massachusetts are being told to get both the H1N1 and seasonal flu vaccines, but will be allowed to opt out:

"Mandatory programs raise serious ethical, legal and practical issues because of the coercive nature of such programs, potential liability concerns, and the potential damage to workplace relationships when cooperation is most needed to address a possible pandemic."   
-- this from Commissioner Auerbach's letter dated August 12. (See letter here).
While the Department of Public Health is now making an effort to appear respectful of individual rights, it could always revise its regulations at any time regarding whether a vaccine is recommended or mandated. Auerbach's letter makes it clear that he thinks the Public Health Council has the authority to debate and decide this issue. The agency's ability to call on emergency powers is worrisome.  And there is an open-ended statute already on the books in Massachusetts authorizing local health boards to mandate vaccinations (for unnamed disease). The DPH is in charge of local health boards.

So for now, the DPH is ordering health facility workers to be vaccinated for both H1N1 and seasonal flu, but allowing them to sign a refusal -- which goes into their personnel file. (If the DPH has the power to grant the right to opt out, it can also take it away!) How long until either the state or the facility goes to the next level of control: A person can’t work there unless he’s taken the vaccine? Health facilities now are required to report to the DPH how many of their employees get the vaccine (and will be ranked accordingly by the state bureaucrats), increasing pressure ("incentive") on the facility to mandate vaccination for employees. So how long will it be until the Dept. of Public Health orders hospitals to bar anyone who refuses a recommended/required vaccine, as they now do in schools, universities and the military?
There are many well informed medical professionals who will opt out of this mass vaccination for H1N1. (One report suggests as many as half may refuse the shot.) So the DPH is probably not so much sensitive to civil rights issues as concerned that they’d have a rebellion on their hands among health professionals if they try to enforce a mandatory vaccination program (the "legal and practical issues" noted by Auerbach).
Auerbach noted after his emergency regulations passed that he really wants everyone to be vaccinated:
New England Cable News Video: Dept of Public Health planning ‘mass vaccinations’ (8-12-09, our transcript)
NECN reporter Brad Puffer: The state Department of Public Health is hoping to vaccinate twice as many people as they did  last year; they’re hoping to vaccinate half the population for the H1N1 virus. And that will be a huge task, one that will require new regulations. The Mass Public Health Council approved emergency regulations weds that will require all health care workers across the state to be vaccinated for both H1N1 and seasonal flu. In addition, all health care workers would be permitted to administer the vaccine, including pharmacists, dentists, and paramedics. [school clinics may be opened.] ... The state is preparing to administer up to 9 million doses this year. Schoolchildren will be targeted... But each H1N1 vaccine will require two shots. Seasonal flu would be yet another shot. ... The risks have been minimal, especially for healthy children. But they will be watching it closely, especially as both seasonal flu and H1N1 spread at the same time, making some in the population more vulnerable to complications. 
Auerbach: “We can avoid that if people are vaccinated, both for seasonal flu and for H1N1, and we really want to try to do that.”

So don't worry. It's only a rumor that our government is moving towards mandatory vaccinations.

Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach issued a statement today to dispel rumors about mandatory vaccination for the so-called swine flu virus.
“The Department of Public Health will not call for or authorize mandatory vaccination against the pandemic flu,” Auerbach wrote in a memo sent to legislators and local officials. “There are no public health officials on the state, national, or global level calling for forced vaccination for H1N1.... The Department of Public Health has been functioning in a transparent manner and actively communicating about H1N1 planning, holding dozens of hours of conference calls with key stakeholders and engaging the media to keep the residents of Massachusetts informed. We are eager to offer the H1N1 vaccine to those most at risk who choose to be vaccinated when it becomes available in mid-October. Mandatory vaccination is not and has never been part of the plan or discussion in Massachusetts’ pandemic response.” 



Note that in 2007, Auerbach testified for a bill mandating children be vaccinated for “all recommended vaccines” -- the list of which grows and grows, despite the strong evidence that autism, ADD, and other health problems are directly linked to the mercury and aluminum containing vaccines. 

Saturday, September 05, 2009

WHO IS JOHN AUERBACH? Is he qualified to be Commissioner of Public Health?


aeurbach-4-blog.jpg

The Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Public Health would hold enormous power if Bill S2028 (pandemic disaster preparation) is passed. He already has the power to define what diseases are a danger to public health and subject to vaccination requirements, isolation and quarantine orders. One would think that someone with a medical degree (preferably along with a public health expertise) would have the job of Commissioner.

Well, this is Massachusetts. Our Commissioner has a BA from Clark University and an MBA (with a concentration in health care administration) from Boston University School of Management. But no medical background. But he's been a factory worker, a labor organizer, and head of the DPH HIV/AIDS office. 

(An example of Auerbach's contribution to public health is The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, a homo-erotic how-to for young men, including a directory of gay bars in Boston. Published by the AIDS Action Committee of Mass., it thanked two governmental groups he ran or worked with for their help: The Boston Public Health Commission and the DPH.)



Auerbach has pledged his support for the homosexual and transgender propaganda in the Massachusetts public schools. MassResistance reported in December 2008:
Commissioner Auerbach replied that he wants to advance "transgender health" while they have the opportunity. He applauded the commission's [on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth] attention to trans health and said "We will listen to your recommendations." Gunner Scott (a woman GLBT Commissioner with a beard and sideburns) stated that she wants the DPH to consider trans people for leadership roles within DPH. Auerbach agreed.... Gunner added that she wants the terms "gender identification" and "gender expression" used in the DPH policies. Auerbach agreed, and said they'll make sure that this happens. 

The Harvard Medical School's Office for Diversity and Community Partnership gave him a "social justice" award in 2008 and noted:

As Commissioner, he heads a Department with 3,100 employees that includes four public health hospitals, the State Laboratory, several regulatory bodies, and numerous programmatic units addressing chronic and infectious disease, substance abuse, environmental health, tobacco control, children and adolescent health, and emergency preparedness. He is the Chair of the Public Health Council, the State’s Health Policy Board, and a member of the Governor’s Anti-Crime Council. 

The Boston Globe reported: 

He had gained national prominence in public health circles by championing sometimes-controversial causes such as banning smoking in bars and restaurants and, more recently, reviewing whether the city should ban trans-fats from restaurants and bakeries. Auerbach also directed a groundbreaking campaign to address ethnic and racial disparities in healthcare, which his boss, Mayor Thomas M. Menino, declared as the most pressing medical issue in the city.
Auerbach's appointment arrives a week after Patrick announced a $72 million increase in public health spending, with the money being used to
expand childhood vaccinations and disease-prevention campaigns.


From the DPH web site:

Commissioner John Auerbach, DPH
How did you get into this field?
My first job in public health was working in the community health center in my neighborhood in Dorchester. I was so impressed with the incredible work that was being done at the center that I wanted to stay in the field.



Who would you consider to be your mentor and why?
I have had a few wonderful mentors. I am most indebted to David Mulligan, the former commissioner of Public Health in Massachusetts, for whom I worked in one capacity or another for almost 20 years. I had the benefit of observing firsthand his brilliant strategic thinking and his skillful, compassionate leadership style. Another invaluable mentor was Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, with his unique combination of first-rate political acumen, heart-felt concern for the most vulnerable and very effective leadership ability.

What quote do you live by?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. (Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963)

What has been the most memorable moment of your career?
Certainly one of the most memorable occurred when I was the Executive Director of the Boston Public Health Commission. After many months of collaborative planning, a coalition unveiled the set of action steps to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health. Initially it seemed unrealistic to think that a city health department could have an impact on such a major problem — which involved many other factors outside of the control of our department such as jobs, housing and schools. Yet many people and organizations were prepared to contribute to taking concerted action — redirecting millions of dollars, supporting scores of contracts and training thouands of people. It was inspiring to see the support for such a worthwhile effort.

Can you share an interesting fact about yourself that your colleagues wouldn’t necessarily know?
My first job after college was as a labor organizer in a shoe factory in the Boston area. As such, I worked on an assembly line for years and came to understand first hand the unsafe working conditions and low salaries that the workers endured — as well as the positive results that were possible under the right set of circumstances. The lessons and skills that I learned from these years have been invaluable in my work in public health.

Is there anything you’d like people to know about your agency?
Much of the work of the Department is unheralded because it involves prevention and the minimization of health risk — something that is difficult to quantify. The work of our dedicated staff results in the avoidance of disease and premature death and the guarantee that air, water and food are safe. The Department has hundreds of unsung heroes.

HIV/AIDS Epidemic Calling Out for Action by Dept. of Public Health


A few days ago, we noted that HIV/AIDS is exempted from the pandemic control measures proposed in Bill S2028. While isolation and quarantine of carriers may not apply, testing and closing dangerous venues would certainly be reasonable.  

HIV/AIDS is clearly a "disease or condition dangerous to the public health.

We suggested that the Department of Public Health might consider closing down such venues as the Ramrod Bar in Boston. Mandatory HIV testing has even been called for by the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York.*  And wouldn't it be great if it were possible to ban web sites such as ManHunt.net? (Yeah, we know that policing the Internet is impossible.)

Consider these suggestions (hardly novel, but clearly non-PC) in light of the recent CDC report that homosexual and bisexual men are more than 50 times more likely to have HIV

See Peter LaBarbera (AFTAH.org):

Homosexual, Bisexual Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV:  CDC
So why won’t the government move to close down “gay” sex clubs and teach about the special dangers of homosexual sex in schools? 

So much for gay “equality.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with unequal_logo_hrc_is_wrong.JPG“men who have sex with men” (MSM): “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV. This does not mean that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, will take some tough, politically incorrect steps necessary to prevent AIDS — like closing down homosexual bathhouses and gay (male) sex clubs in major cities, and educating teenagers on the hugely disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual sex. The relentless pandering by federal, state and local governments to “gay” activists even as these same agencies fight diseases specifically linked to homosexual sex is one of the greatest public policy follies of our time — indeed, of history itself.
The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place. 

See also the D.C. homosexual newspaper, Washington Blade article (8/28/09). Excerpt: 

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.


*Marjorie J. Hill, Ph.D., “HIV Testing—and informed consent—should be mandatory,” Washington Blade, February 24, 2009.

Friday, September 04, 2009

Mandatory Vaccination in Massachusetts? Connect the Dots


Many citizens are rightly worried about S2028, the "pandemic disaster preparation" bill. We also need to be worried about the vaccination law now on the books in Massachusetts:
Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.
Vaccination for what is unspecified. Granted, the fine is only five dollars, but the mandate is disturbing.
Pending bill S2028 would actually remove the "require and enforce" language, but mandate isolation or quarantine for a refuser: 
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined... (Line 409)
But nothing in S2028 specifically overturns Ch. 111, sec. 181. Where does that leave us?
Further, Ch. 111, Section 6 gives total authority to the Commissioner of Public Health to determine what disease is "deemed dangerous to public health" and thus warranting vaccination. 
MGL, Ch. 111, Section 6
The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health.... 

DPH Commissioner Auerbach's Testimony on S2028 Pandemic Bill

Who wrote the Pandemic bill S2028? DPH Commissioner John Auerbach answered this at the March 26 hearing on the bill (then S18).
As we noted, Senator Richard Moore, chief sponsor of the civil-liberties-defying pandemic preparation bill S2028, referred to it as the "pandemic flu bill" at the beginning of the March 26 hearing.
In typical non-transparent Massachusetts Legislature fashion, the hearing came with little fanfare. The hoi polloi have to be kept in the dark anytime their individual freedoms are threatened. Notably, no citizens opposing the bill were present -- since few knew of the bill or the hearing at that time. (Fortunately, CatchoftheDay Video News was there to record it.) 

But the big guy, Department of Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach, was there, speaking in support of the bill for his department and the other medical establishment organizations that (he explained) worked together to draft it: the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the Medical Reserve Corps of Massachusetts, and the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. Auerbach said that "virtually everyone is in favor of" the bill. He said it's a "critical piece of the Commonwealth's preparations in case of a pandemic outbreak or other critical emergencies" (unspecified).
Clearly the medical establishment has a very different outlook on this bill from the general populace. Besides their close ties to Big Pharma and vaccination dogma, S2028 shows they are very concerned with the liability issues of offering emergency treatment "outside standard clinical practice" -- and illnesses resulting from the dangerous vaccines they plan to administer. 
The majority of the people seem to have awakened to the dangers of vaccines, and no longer trust any level of government -- or even the professional elites. Too bad they weren't able to make it to the March 26 hearing.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

HIV/AIDS Exempted from Pandemic Control Bill H2028

The pandemic emergency bill S2028 makes an exception for one specific disease, HIV/AIDS, from isolation and quarantine strategies. See lines 456-458:

In this section [re: isolation and quarantine], “disease or condition dangerous to the public  health” does not include acquired  immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human  immunodeficiency virus (HIV). 

While it doesn’t make sense to forcibly isolate or quarantine HIV/AIDS carriers, why not employ some of the other strategies enumerated in this bill to contain disease, such as:
- mandatory testing for the disease (lines 423-424).
- entry into premises (without warrant), where it’s suspected the disease is being communicated to others, and closing the premises or forbidding “assemblages of persons” there (lines 78-84 and 351-367).

After all, AIDS activists are always saying more needs to be done to combat the “epidemic”.

Well, our Department of Public Health would never do that, as it would “stigmatize” people with HIV/AIDS. How how could the state possibly condone targeting of gay bars, houses of prostitution, or drug dens where the disease is clearly spread? That would be an outrage on the scale of Stonewall! It would be interfering with freedom of choice and expression! How could it possibly recommend HIV/AIDS testing -- even before the “marriage” of two men? (In fact, the DPH under Governor Romney eliminated all STD testing before marriage. See Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004.)

The DPH believes it’s enough to push condom use and frequent HIV testing. 

Is it just a coincidence that our Commissioner of Public Health, John Auerbach, is openly homosexual and “married” to another man?

What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.  


For more on Commissioner Auerbach, see:



Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Powers: Quarantine for Mental Illness?

To Domenico Bettinelli @ BettNet (re: your post "Massachusetts is NOT forcing vaccines on you"):

OK, Domenico. You make the point that
mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.

You’re correct that
bill S2028 reads:

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (S2028, lines 409-414.)

Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? 
The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:

When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health ...[they] may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)

An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health. (Lines 464-469.)


This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”. 

Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with
who knows what?   (No, I’m not speaking first person.)

Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in 
forced quarantine?  Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)

And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.


S2028 even includes a provision
“to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.


C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.


Let’s end with this.
Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:

Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health. 

And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above:
injuries, health conditions, and threats to health. All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.

And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!

Pandemic Bill S2028: What Do Its Sponsors Really Have in Mind?

WorldNetDaily has followed up our post on S2028, focusing on Massachusetts but also referring to worrisome legal actions in other states.

Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)


Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A
pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?

It's no wonder so many
Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)

As MassResistance has reported,
Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Bill S2028 Update

Update to yesterday's post on S2028 "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" Bill:

We just heard back from the House Ways and Means Committee staffer, who said that the Committee has not yet decided what to do with the bill. To paraphrase his comments:

It's been filed in past sessions but went nowhere. With the new Speaker (Robert DeLeo), it's not clear what will happen with it this session. The Committee is aware of issues with the bill -- some are valid, some not (he said). The Committee is getting lots of calls about it.