One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions even amongst liberty
movement activists is the conundrum of government force and prevention
during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another
have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and
threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then
acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties,
enforce quarantines, and stop people from spreading the disease? After
all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly
have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One
out of control (or “lone wolf”) citizen/terrorist could reignite a
biological firestorm, so, should we not turn to government and forgo
certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater
If the government in question was a proven and honorable institution,
then I would say pro-Medical Martial Law arguments might have a leg to
stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial
law is absolutely unacceptable under ANY cir*****stances, including Ebola,
in light of the fact that our current government will be the
predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you DO NOT turn to
the government for help when the government is the cause of the
The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post
recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and
Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.
Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for over thirty years.
Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care
guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn’t even receive
guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously
progressing out of control.
Why did the CDC leave Thomas Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case,
in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper
procedures in place to prevent further infection, and without a CDC team
present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is
all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?
The greatest danger to American citizens is, in fact, not the Ebola
virus, but government reactions to the Ebola virus. Already, several
medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an
Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This
might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of
Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.
Glaxosmithkline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their products or outright lying about their effectiveness. Glaxo was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. Glaxo has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.
It is important to point out that Glaxo is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.
U.S. company Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted
with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be
randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic.
The test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter
and the mainstream media, but reports indicate that if the vaccine had
been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have