Latest Discussion

Below, you'll find the latest comments on articles, issues, profiles and Citizen Voices® discussions across our site. Add your voice to the debate.

The Nuremberg Code's informed consent has been firmly adopted by the medical profession after the Nazi doctors during World War II widely experimented on human subjects resulting in untold suffering and deaths. Vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person, and it has the inherent ability to result in the injury or death of that healthy person. In consideration of: the fact that there is NO GUARANTEE that the deliberate introduction of killed or live microorganisms and of the neuro- and immuno-toxic vaccine adjuvants and preservatives into the body of a healthy person will not compromise the health or cause the death of that person either immediately or in the future; and where very few predictors having been identified by the medical science to give advance warning that injury or death may occur; and with NO guarantee that the vaccine will indeed protect the person from contracting a disease absent ANY long-term randomized placebo-controlled studies on this subject; and in the complete absence of any long-term placebo-controlled randomized studies of the way vaccines singly or in combination act in the human body at the cellular and molecular level, and in the absence also, of ANY long-term large-scale studies of the comparative health in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated -- in light of all of the above factors -- vaccination as a medical procedure is experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual. In light of the fact that the vaccine makers are exempt from all liability for death or injury caused by their vaccines, and that vaccines are a HUGE profit-maker for them, and in light of the fact that ALL FOUR of the vaccine -makers are convicted felons who have paid over $35 Billion for fraud and deception of the regulatory bodies in efforts to increase the sales and profitability of their pharmaceutical drugs -- it is of PARAMOUNT importance that fully informed consent be obtained EACH AND EVERY TIME before ANY VACCINE is given. The PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE of the requirement of informed consent is further emphasized by the fact the the Federal Vaccine Court (established by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986) has awarded well over $4 billion and one hundred million in compensation to thousands of injured or killed vaccine recipients, where the awards are limited to $250 thousand per death.
- Tatiana Smith   Jun 17, 2019
No they should not. This violates the right to liberty. Further denying children access to education based on medical choice violates their right to privacy and imposes taxation on parents without giving them access to what their taxes are paying for, which violates the constitution of NH. In other words, liberty includes body autonomy. Privacy includes the right to keep medical decisions private and public education is a right of all children of tax paying citizens. Forcing NH citizens to inject a foreign substance into their bodies without their consent or forcing them through coercion/threat/isolation is a violation of what this country stands for and violates their human rights. Where there is risk there must be choice. Consent cannot be given under duress.
- Anne Owens   Jun 17, 2019
Where there is a risk there must be a choice! Getting a medical exemption is an extremely difficult process and in 90% of cases you may not get a medical exemption for your child unless he or she has had a serious adverse reaction in the past or a sibling has had a reaction. Even in a case where a child has an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine it can still be a grueling process to get an exemption for that vaccine, instead the parents are told to “stand by with an epi-pen, just Incase” in what world is this acceptable? Our children are not lab rats to be tested on! I will not play roulette with my child’s life, especially since I have done my part in having genetic testing done to show that my child has a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury! Currently that is still not enough to get a medical exemption! This should not even be a topic up for discussion, parent should always have a choice when it comes to making medical decisions for their children as long as they of sound mind! To say that this is an over-reach of government is a drastic understatement! There must be ways to test to see if these children are high risk of injury before exposing them to this kind of risk. We are all just parents trying to protect our babies! There is no cause more important than that.
- Jessica Oconnell   Jun 16, 2019
The government should never inject an individual with drugs/vaccines without their permission & willingness. Citizens Count asks a valid question. Let’s see what NH citizens think..
- Linda Camarota   Jun 16, 2019
Simple. We shoot him first.
- Scott Atlas   Jun 05, 2019
Not to mention that the USA has 327.2 million people - so thats 0.010085574% of people each year
- Scott Atlas   Jun 05, 2019
firearms on campus
"In the event of an active shooter incident, it might be unclear who was the shooter and who was the defender. This could have fatal consequences for innocent bystanders.”" Yes, clearly the person who is not holding a gun(A bystander) will be mistaken for an active shooter. This is really weak.
- Scott Atlas   Jun 05, 2019
local gun laws
Public venues? Do you not realize that any criminals would be SURROUNDED by armed good-guys?
- Scott Atlas   Jun 05, 2019
House keys
I agree completely. I am a prospective NH second home owner, but I probably won't be purchasing for a few more years. If a special tax is levied against non-resident owners of property, then I will likely look elsewhere. NH needs to decide if they want to attract out-of-state owners or drive them away.
- Scot Dixon   Jun 03, 2019
Yesterday I drove thru Franconia Notch and was appalled at what I saw; miles of erected signs, miles of posts tied in with rope and these barriers blocking the breakdown lane. This ruined the aesthetic appearance of the notch, provided a safety hazard by eliminating the break sown lane and generality brought the issue as to the cost of all this. Is this a ploy to increase revenue by supplying a bus service? Thsi is not the case in Pinkham, Crawford or other notches. If there is deemed a problem fix it by increasing parking, not by increasing unsightly costly barriers and signs and given the impression that it is another tax on us by charging for a bus ride. Your response would be greatly appreciated.
- Edmund Marvelli   Jun 01, 2019


Join Citizens Count

Join our constantly growing community. Membership is free and supports our efforts to help NH citizens become informed and engaged. 


Like what you see?

Your support makes our unbiased, in-depth coverage of elections and issues possible.


©2018 Live Free or Die Alliance | The Live Free or Die Alliance is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.