© theeventchronicle.com
If you were reading the Health and Wellness section of SOTT over the past week, you probably saw a few things that were shocking to say the least. And I'm not talking about magnetic particles from traffic exhaust entering your brain (although, granted, that's pretty shocking). I'm talking about the articles covering the push we see from the Powers That Be toward a healthcare police state, complete with forced vaccinations and quarantining of populations. Sound a tad dramatic? Read on.

Last month the Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. quietly announced their plans to grant themselves the power to apprehend and detain people deemed "reasonably believed to be infected with a [quarantinable communicable] disease in its qualifying stage and (A) moving or about to move from a state to another state; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a state to another state". The details are laid out in a long Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the August 15, 2016, Federal Register to amend federal public health law. The full document is here.

Some of the reactions in internet-land are a little over-the-top, which is to be expected given that a medical police state has been inching closer and closer with every new mandate announced by the CDC and similar bodies. But what does a more cool, rational look at the document reveal?

The problem isn't so much the spirit of the document - of course it's a good idea to try to prevent actually threatening diseases from spreading to the wider population by segregating those who have contracted the illness. The problem is twofold: 1) that the language in the notice is tricky to navigate and could be interpreted as forcible confinement at the will of non-medical personnel who suspect you may be sick or have come into contact with a disease (but the basis of suspicion, being difficult to define, is problematic); and 2) that this is coming from the CDC, with a proven track record of hyping up non-issue diseases, hiding uncomfortable facts that will make their vaccines look bad, and widespread corruption.

The proposed change to the rule in the Public Health Service Act looks to give the CDC more power under the U.S. Constitution (the original purpose of the rule was to stop people with yellow fever or cholera from disembarking from ships in the 1800s') to detain individuals they believe could be, or become, infected with a communicable disease. The act could extend to anyone entering the U.S. or traveling within the U.S. by plane, train or automobile.

Examples of the reasons one may be detained are outlined in the document as follows:
"Clinical manifestations in the individual consistent with those of a quarantinable communicable disease; suspected contact with cases or suspect cases of individuals infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in its communicable stage; host susceptibility to a quarantinable communicable disease combined with opportunity for exposure; travel to countries and places where transmission of a quarantinable communicable disease has likely occurred; reports of the individual exhibiting illness or symptoms consistent with those of a quarantinable communicable disease; or other evidence of possible infection, including exposure to the infectious agent that causes a quarantinable communicable disease."
At first blush, this seems reasonable, but again, we need to keep in mind what body this is coming from. The bold text above is problematic since "host susceptibility", to the CDC, would likely be dependent upon whether an individual has had all their vaccinations.

As Barbara Loe Fisher writes:
"If this NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) is implemented and the states follow suit, you and your children could be vulnerable to detention and quarantine if health officials decide you are, or could become, a transmitter of measles or other infections because, for example, your electronic medical records reveal you have not gotten every dose of every CDC recommended vaccine.

Let's not forget that no government agency, corporation or person who creates, produces, sells, licenses, recommends, mandates or administers a federally recommended vaccine to you or your child, has accountability or liability in a court of law in front of a jury of your peers if you become brain damaged or die from vaccination."
Similarly, "opportunity for exposure" could really be defined as anything at all. Walking down the street in any major city is likely bringing a person into contact with any number of communicable diseases, but that doesn't mean an individual will catch or spread it.

© inhabitat.com
This rule change comes at a time when vaccine hysteria is at a fever pitch and children are being kicked out of school for not conforming to the entire vaccine schedule as laid out by the CDC while doctors have been told by The American Academy of Pediatrics that it's OK to drop families of patients who refuse to vaccinate. The idea that one has a right to choose their own medical treatment, for prevention and treatment, has been pushed more and more to the fringes with every hysterical mainstream media piece smearing "antivaxxers".

Getting back to the language of the document, here's an example of problematic language:
"CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment: provided that the individual's consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part."
While earlier in the document it goes into how an agreement "is an important tool to obtain an individual's compliance with public health measures and as a means of building trust with the individual" and that agreements need to be "without duress or coercion, and with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances of his/her individual case", this is all seemingly negated in the final sentence in the above paragraph when it says "that the individual's consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part."

It would seem that an agreement would be the first approach, but if that isn't forthcoming, a Federal order will be issued where agreement isn't deemed necessary. And under the Penalties heading, it states:
"However, individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties..."
Also troubling is what the CDC actually deems to be a communicable disease worthy of quarantine. Again, from Barbara Lowe Fischer:
"So people took notice when the CDC announced on August 15 that there was an urgent need to amend federal public health law to "reduce and mitigate the risk of outbreaks of Ebola, MERS, measles and other communicable diseases in the U.S." Ebola and ... MEASLES?

Let's see, Ebola is a lethal, highly contagious virus that can quickly overwhelm and damage the human immune system and cause uncontrollable bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth and every orifice, killing 25 to 90 percent of people who get it.

And then there is measles, which I remember having as a child for a week while I took naps, wore sunglasses and read books with my mom, ate chicken noodle soup and sipped fruit juice until the spots went away. That was my experience with measles in the 1950s and it was the commonplace experience of the majority of baby boomers in America, who got measles or chickenpox."
It should be of grave concern to every US citizen that the Federal Government of the USA can't seem to tell the difference between an actual virulent deadly disease and something most people nursed off in a week in their childhood with a little chicken soup and some rest. Maybe the CDC has been so busy hyping up measles in order to push their vaccinations on an ignorant public that they've started to buy their own propaganda. Or, more importantly, they're hoping that you have.

The level of corruption, fraud and destruction of evidence in the CDC with regard to the MMR vaccine is well documented in the documentary Vaxxed. It's an airtight case, thanks to the testament of William Thompson, CDC Scientist who admitted to deliberately fudging the data to make the correlation between the vaccine and autism disappear. Vaxxed is a highly recommended watch.

As Fischer points out:
"In 1960, three years before the measles vaccine was licensed, the death rate for that childhood infection was 0.2 cases per 100,000 persons. Before the chickenpox vaccine was licensed in 1995, there were about 100 deaths per year in a U.S. population of 260 million people. A case of measles or chickenpox does not come close to qualifying as a public health emergency that requires a person to being taken into custody by a government official."
By all accounts, these are minor diseases. It's clear that the drive to make them more than this is completely tied to the financial incentive of selling more vaccines. In a populace so tied to believing the word of their leaders (with the help of the mainstream media) the public will, apparently, completely buy into any perceived threat, no matter how inane. A little research goes a long way toward tearing down the official narrative, but the number of people willing to take this step remains shockingly small. As a result we have a population so steeped in lies they are willing to submit to whatever steps their leaders deem appropriate "for their own safety", despite the fact that the actual threat is quite minuscule.

Keep in mind that none of this would be possible if the public hadn't already been primed with the total panic that's been circulating in the mainstream media about what seem to always turn out to be rather innocuous diseases. Zika, measles, mumps, SARS, swine flu, bird flu - these are but a few of the over-hyped "epidemics" that have been used to terrify the public for the last decade.

And speaking of Zika, the virus' "vague and difficult-to-diagnose symptoms make it an especially apt vehicle for creating widespread hysteria that could, without much difficulty, provide the basis for at least limited implementation of the CDC's quarantine and vaccination project." While Zika is not specifically named in the document, the steady stream of "government and corporate media coverage for a comparatively scant number of cases identified in South Florida" make it ripe for the next "disease" to be put on the list for detainment and quarantine.

© nbcdfw.com
The symptoms of Zika are mild (fever, rash, joint pain, conjunctivitis, muscle pain, headache) and generally last up to a week. But that hasn't stopped the CDC from mass aerial spraying of a toxic pesticide, Naled, whose toxicity symptoms are actually worse than the disease it's supposed to be eradicating. Never mind the fact that aerial spraying is of extremely questionable effectiveness.

And of course, there is a Zika vaccine coming down the pipe in the near future. It's already moved to human trials. It's seems a little too convenient that the CDC is introducing these changes to the Health Act right at the time this new vaccine will be rolled out. Somebody stands to make a whole lot of money out of this.

From the above link:
"At this point the concerned citizen has more than enough to question what's really afoot here. A population so propagandized and ill-informed on the negligible threat posed by Zika could easily mistake Naled's effects for the mild symptoms characterizing the virus - much as Pyriproxyfen proved cause for a similar frenzy among public health officials in Brazil. This would provide the basis for an ambitious and wide scale federal effort to quarantine one or more areas and introduce related emergency measures now being dictated by the CDC."
The silver lining to all of this, if indeed there could be said to be one, is the fact that none of these measures would be necessary if people weren't becoming aware of the fact that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark everywhere. The fact that more resistance is building, that more and more people are starting to wake up and question the official narrative is evidenced by the fact that these big government bodies are pulling out all the stops to sell their vaccines to the public.

Overall, the proposed law change isn't an overt attempt to create a medical police state, despite what some alarmist bloggers are stating. The concern is more in how what is written and how it could be interpreted and implemented when a real health crisis breaks out.

Perhaps what's being set up in all of this is a massive confrontation between those who are aware of the manipulation for what it is, and the CDC's desire to gain more and more control over the health and wellness of the population. Whatever the result of a confrontation like this, there are bound to be casualties on both sides.