Vaccines, Eugenics, and Dr.Sherri Tenpenny - Page 2

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

More likely the Lou Gehrig's disease, also called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is caused by a severe Lyme disease infection. Lyme disease is even more political than vaccines. Most conventional doctors will tell you I'm wrong.

Source, please.  

[BeckyBird]

Now for a history lesson....and you thought you graduated from school. More homework lol!

Did you know that the USA openly practiced eugenics? Yes, it's true. However, after WW2, they were forced to become secret. Change names, but still practice. Do we all accept Wikipedia here? I don't love it, but it's mainstream enough for all readers. Just type in Eugenics and read away. Real history, not a conspiracy theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

But hey! This does not mean that eugenics is still practiced today in the USA! Come on now. It would be a big secret, and someone would have blabbed. Or, it's impossible, because everyone would have to be "in" on it! Right?

No.

This is an article outlining the Bush family ties to the Nazis and Eugenics. Um, laugh if you want, but this is real history and you ought to learn about it.  I urge you to read this if you are serious about learning. It is so so easy to dismiss the info as conspiracy theories, but no, we are talking about facts here!

Did you know that George Bush was the chair of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population? Read page 5 if you'd like to learn what he thought about African Americans (that they were "down-breeding" the US population.) We all know that he went on to become president, and later, so did his son. This is not really a criticism against the Republican party, but I am calling out evil when I see it. You can be evil whether you are Republican OR Democrat. This issue should not be about parties anyways, but I know claims against the Bushes will upset some folks.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881353/Webster-Griffin-Tarpley-The-Bush-Family-Ties-to-Eugenics-and-Race-Hygiene

I have more info, but it will have to come later. I'm spending my daughter's nap time here on MDC lol. Back later...

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Now for a history lesson....and you thought you graduated from school. More homework lol!

Did you know that the USA openly practiced eugenics? Yes, it's true. However, after WW2, they were forced to become secret. Change names, but still practice. Do we all accept Wikipedia here? I don't love it, but it's mainstream enough for all readers. Just type in Eugenics and read away. Real history, not a conspiracy theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

But hey! This does not mean that eugenics is still practiced today in the USA! Come on now. It would be a big secret, and someone would have blabbed. Or, it's impossible, because everyone would have to be "in" on it! Right?

No.

This is an article outlining the Bush family ties to the Nazis and Eugenics. Um, laugh if you want, but this is real history and you ought to learn about it.  I urge you to read this if you are serious about learning. It is so so easy to dismiss the info as conspiracy theories, but no, we are talking about facts here!

Did you know that George Bush was the chair of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population? Read page 5 if you'd like to learn what he thought about African Americans (that they were "down-breeding" the US population.) We all know that he went on to become president, and later, so did his son. This is not really a criticism against the Republican party, but I am calling out evil when I see it. You can be evil whether you are Republican OR Democrat. This issue should not be about parties anyways, but I know claims against the Bushes will upset some folks.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881353/Webster-Griffin-Tarpley-The-Bush-Family-Ties-to-Eugenics-and-Race-Hygiene

I have more info, but it will have to come later. I'm spending my daughter's nap time here on MDC lol. Back later...

BeckyBird, I could not care less about claims against the Bush family.  But given this post here, and the fact that you are a Truther, I know that you have thought and read a lot about conspiracies.  So, I'm following up to my question I asked earlier...what kind of eugenics program targets everyone?  Every vaccine advocate will tell you that the goal is to get as many people vaccinated as possible...ultimately, they would like to reach 100%.  So, what is the point of it from a eugenics perspective? 

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

The most profitable situation for the pharmaceutical industry would be to have people live as long as possible with a chronic illness that requires multiple drugs over their lifetime. And of course, to have chronic illness start as early as possible in life. At least 54.1 % of U.S. children have one or more chronic health problems. "An estimated 43% of US children (32 million) currently have at least 1 of 20 chronic health conditions assessed, increasing to 54.1% when overweight, obesity, or being at risk for developmental delays are included" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285910002500

This is a really shocking figure until you look at what these "chronic health problems" are.  I mean, I see myself as very healthy, see the doctor very rarely, and currently take nothing but vitamins, but I would definitely qualify.  Honestly, I'm surprised that 45.9% of kids don't have any allergies, learning disabilities, etc.  Crazy.  If vaccines are meant to cause allergies so that we'll buy more allergy medicines, they're doing a lousy job. 

Personally, I find the argument that big pharma wants us sick so we'll buy more medicines to be pretty silly.  My DH works in the medical field, and though he jokes about "job security," when something like obesity comes up in conversation, he'd like nothing better than finding a new treatment that would make people healthier.  Everyone I know in the medical field feels the same way.

[BeckyBird]

Well, the fact that our former president was a eugenecist should be significant to you. This shows how recent the eugenics policies might have been practiced. This is not something that happened 100 years ago but is no longer in practice, you see.

As for the whole vaccine issue, this is my theory. Given the fact that so much of our history involves wars, killing, forced sterilization, etc. I'm drawing conclusions from the facts. Also, add in the many scandals from pharmaceutical companies, FDA, CDC, revolving door, suppression of cures, etc.

From the view of someone in favor of population control:

So, what is the point of a senior citizen on Social Security? It's a drain on the system, an unprofitable, parasitic burden. Ever heard of a "death panel"? Out with the old, useless, and in with the new!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ

Wouldn't it be smart to have a special cancer virus in vaccines? SV-40, fact. Oops, how'd that get in there? Could this cause cancer that would kill a person after they reached retirement age?

Could vaccines be used to trigger health conditions, but not kill, young children? The health conditions would be manageable, of course, with pharmaceutical drugs. We don't want to kill the kids, because they will be needed to work. Up until they reach a good old age, that is. This is just one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1079259/A-vaccine-given-babies-increase-risk-childhood-asthma.html

Let's also load toxins into the vaccines, but we'll save the safer vaccines for important people. Most folks received the vax containing  potentially harmful adjuvants-- 

"The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, contains an immunity-enhancing chemical compound, known as an adjuvant, whose side effects are not yet entirely known."    Hear that--not yet entirely known. Hmm.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1932366,00.html#ixzz1YujUTDne

 

I can go on, and I will.  Have you listened lately to the common theme among extreme environmentalists? Humans are bad, polluting the earth, and populations are out of control? You just wait and see what happens when more and more people support this idea, because then we'll be able to talk about population control like it's a good thing. Did you like China's policy? Oh, and by the way, a real environmentalist would be concerned with what the heck they are spraying in the skies, or GMOs contaminating the environment. Or depleted uranium that we use in our weapons. Not the theory of overpopulation, which is just a theory you know.

 

And while we're at it, I turn to my old favorites, Aspartame and Fluoride. How in the world can you justify these chemicals, the way they were approved for human consumption? Look them up, I urge you. These make people ill, but hey, there's probably a nice drug you can buy for the damage caused.

 

So, get people sick, but not dead, manage their health care with drugs, and by the time they reach unproductive age (retirement) then they will die off from a lifetime of the toxic assault. There it is.

 

I have to go now, but that is my short answer to your question. If you need me to elaborate, I will do so later tonight (after dd's bedtime.)

 

 

[ModerateMom]

Well, the fact that our former president was a eugenecist should be significant to you. This shows how recent the eugenics policies might have been practiced. This is not something that happened 100 years ago but is no longer in practice, you see.

I meant that claims against the Bush family do not anger me.

As for the whole vaccine issue, this is my theory. Given the fact that so much of our history involves wars, killing, forced sterilization, etc. I'm drawing conclusions from the facts. Also, add in the many scandals from pharmaceutical companies, FDA, CDC, revolving door, suppression of cures, etc.

From the view of someone in favor of population control:

So, what is the point of a senior citizen on Social Security? It's a drain on the system, an unprofitable, parasitic burden. Ever heard of a "death panel"? Out with the old, useless, and in with the new!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ

Wouldn't it be smart to have a special cancer virus in vaccines? SV-40, fact. Oops, how'd that get in there? Could this cause cancer that would kill a person after they reached retirement age?

Could vaccines be used to trigger health conditions, but not kill, young children? The health conditions would be manageable, of course, with pharmaceutical drugs. We don't want to kill the kids, because they will be needed to work. Up until they reach a good old age, that is. This is just one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1079259/A-vaccine-given-babies-increase-risk-childhood-asthma.html

Let's also load toxins into the vaccines, but we'll save the safer vaccines for important people. Most folks received the vax containing  potentially harmful adjuvants-- 

"The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, contains an immunity-enhancing chemical compound, known as an adjuvant, whose side effects are not yet entirely known."    Hear that--not yet entirely known. Hmm.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1932366,00.html#ixzz1YujUTDne

 

I can go on, and I will.  Have you listened lately to the common theme among extreme environmentalists? Humans are bad, polluting the earth, and populations are out of control? You just wait and see what happens when more and more people support this idea, because then we'll be able to talk about population control like it's a good thing. Did you like China's policy? Oh, and by the way, a real environmentalist would be concerned with what the heck they are spraying in the skies, or GMOs contaminating the environment. Or depleted uranium that we use in our weapons. Not the theory of overpopulation, which is just a theory you know.

 

And while we're at it, I turn to my old favorites, Aspartame and Fluoride. How in the world can you justify these chemicals, the way they were approved for human consumption? Look them up, I urge you. These make people ill, but hey, there's probably a nice drug you can buy for the damage caused.

 

So, get people sick, but not dead, manage their health care with drugs, and by the time they reach unproductive age (retirement) then they will die off from a lifetime of the toxic assault. There it is.

 

I have to go now, but that is my short answer to your question. If you need me to elaborate, I will do so later tonight (after dd's bedtime.)

Are you talking about population control, eugenics, or good old fashioned money-making schemes?  Your argument is all over the map, here.

[BeckyBird]

ModerateMom, 6 posts, I'm talking about all of it. It's all related.

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

ModerateMom, 6 posts, I'm talking about all of it. It's all related.

I don't get what you're saying about 6 posts? 

But if it's all related, then tell me how the pharmaceutical companies will continue to make money if we kill off the human race with sterilizing ingredients in the vaccines?

[BeckyBird]

Because not everyone will be sterilized. I'm sure there is not a 100% effective rate with the sterilants, in the same way that the vaccines themselves don't have a 100% rate. Anyway, the sterilization will result in a smaller, more manageable population. Considering world history, why is this idea so hard to believe?

And the whole 6 post thing....if you are truly interested in learning more, that's fine with me. However, from my experience on this forum, I've witnessed new members who like to come here just to argue. This has happened so many times. Well, I do not want to argue. I do want to show people that there might be a possible connection between our government, vaccines, health problems, drug companies, etc. because I want to help change it!!!  Yes, it's all over the map, but it is hard to talk about one subject without bringing up another. They are all related.

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Because not everyone will be sterilized. I'm sure there is not a 100% effective rate with the sterilants, in the same way that the vaccines themselves don't have a 100% rate. Anyway, the sterilization will result in a smaller, more manageable population. Considering world history, why is this idea so hard to believe?

And the whole 6 post thing....if you are truly interested in learning more, that's fine with me. However, from my experience on this forum, I've witnessed new members who like to come here just to argue. This has happened so many times. Well, I do not want to argue. I do want to show people that there might be a possible connection between our government, vaccines, health problems, drug companies, etc. because I want to help change it!!!  Yes, it's all over the map, but it is hard to talk about one subject without bringing up another. They are all related.

I'm not here to argue, but I do think that it's important to look at such arguments critically and rationally.  I'm trying to understand it better to see if it makes sense to me.  And so far I've got to say it's a bit murky.
 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Because not everyone will be sterilized. I'm sure there is not a 100% effective rate with the sterilants, in the same way that the vaccines themselves don't have a 100% rate. Anyway, the sterilization will result in a smaller, more manageable population. Considering world history, why is this idea so hard to believe?

And the whole 6 post thing....if you are truly interested in learning more, that's fine with me. However, from my experience on this forum, I've witnessed new members who like to come here just to argue. This has happened so many times. Well, I do not want to argue. I do want to show people that there might be a possible connection between our government, vaccines, health problems, drug companies, etc. because I want to help change it!!!  Yes, it's all over the map, but it is hard to talk about one subject without bringing up another. They are all related.

I guess the eugenics argument just doesn't make sense because generally eugenics target a specific part of a population - not the entire population.  Vaccines are targeted to the entire population, not just a specific subset of the population.

Now, if you said that the republican party was trying to practice eugenics on african american's, I would totally believe you - but a government can't practice eugenics on the entire population, cause that's not eugenics.
 

edited for typo.

Edited by Super~Single~Mama - 9/24/11 at 8:02pm

[Buzzer Beater]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Because not everyone will be sterilized. I'm sure there is not a 100% effective rate with the sterilants, in the same way that the vaccines themselves don't have a 100% rate. Anyway, the sterilization will result in a smaller, more manageable population. Considering world history, why is this idea so hard to believe?

And the whole 6 post thing....if you are truly interested in learning more, that's fine with me. However, from my experience on this forum, I've witnessed new members who like to come here just to argue. This has happened so many times. Well, I do not want to argue. I do want to show people that there might be a possible connection between our government, vaccines, health problems, drug companies, etc. because I want to help change it!!!  Yes, it's all over the map, but it is hard to talk about one subject without bringing up another. They are all related.

I think you need a good argument if you want people to think what you are saying is even remotely credible. Previous posters have some good questions, no matter the number of posts they have.

[ahimsamom]

BeckyBird! I am so sorry it has taken me so long to read up and help you on your defense.

Perhaps people don't care that Bush is a eugenicist, but may I point out that Obama's current director of the White House office of Science, John Holdren, is a PUBLISHED eugenicist. In the book which he co-authored, ECOSCIENCE:Population, resources, environment , he pushes ideas such as these:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
 

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. If you don't believe me, look it up and do the research yourself.

On THIS page, you can find direct scanned images from the book ECOSCIENCE (about halfway down the article). I encourage you to check this link out for yourself. The author of the article also addresses possible counter-claims to this evidence at the end of the article.

HERE is a video in which Bill Gates openly says that vaccines, modern health care and "reproductive services" are designed to reduce the world's population.  

Here is another article that is very well cited, titled: Death by Vaccination: The Gates Foundation and the New Eugenics

Here is a great interview of Dr. Russel Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon, regarding increased vaccinations and sterilization through lithium and fluoride being added to our water systems. It is a five part video, so hopefully you take the time to watch it.

GREAT article on depopulation via vaccines and sterilization with video clips and links for further research found HERE.

Article regarding a mass vaccine program in Brazil and suspicions of covert sterilization plan.

UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds

I could go ON and ON, providing link after link of research. All the evidence is in front of us in plain sight, because the people who formulated this plan distract us with HOLLYWOOD and THE NFL and our IPHONE's.

BeckyBird, I could not say it better than you already have:

"I do want to show people that there might be a possible connection between our government, vaccines, health problems, drug companies, etc. because I want to help change it!!!  Yes, it's all over the map, but it is hard to talk about one subject without bringing up another. They are all related. """

As Thomas Jefferson, an amazing example for each and every one of us, said, "ALL TYRANNY NEEDS TO GAIN A FOOTHOLD IS FOR PEOPLE OF GOOD CONSCIENCE TO REMAIN SILENT"

I am right there with you BeckyBird. I will not remain silent.

[ahimsamom]

Also, forgot to mention that if you want info on the Lyme disease, ALS link, research Dr. Martz. He is a doctor who had ALS and cured it by using lyme disease treatments. He is currently doing a study that should be published by the end of the year.

[kinkajoujou]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

From the view of someone in favor of population control:

So, what is the point of a senior citizen on Social Security? It's a drain on the system, an unprofitable, parasitic burden. Ever heard of a "death panel"? Out with the old, useless, and in with the new!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ

Wouldn't it be smart to have a special cancer virus in vaccines? SV-40, fact. Oops, how'd that get in there? Could this cause cancer that would kill a person after they reached retirement age?

Could vaccines be used to trigger health conditions, but not kill, young children? The health conditions would be manageable, of course, with pharmaceutical drugs. We don't want to kill the kids, because they will be needed to work. Up until they reach a good old age, that is. This is just one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1079259/A-vaccine-given-babies-increase-risk-childhood-asthma.html

Let's also load toxins into the vaccines, but we'll save the safer vaccines for important people. Most folks received the vax containing  potentially harmful adjuvants-- 

"The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, contains an immunity-enhancing chemical compound, known as an adjuvant, whose side effects are not yet entirely known."    Hear that--not yet entirely known. Hmm.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1932366,00.html#ixzz1YujUTDne

 

So, get people sick, but not dead, manage their health care with drugs, and by the time they reach unproductive age (retirement) then they will die off from a lifetime of the toxic assault. There it is.

 

 

 

 

I think you are contradicting yourself here: is it the elderly they want to do off, is it that they want the kids to be manageably sick, is it that they want specific population groups targeted? Is it all of them? I can't quite figure it out..

If vaccines have a cancer virus for those retired and a burden on social security, then the plan must have terribly backfired, because all over the world the rates of cancer in people in their 30-50s is skyrocketing.. Really, I keep hearing about people of that age getting cancer much more than older ones.

Even a mere cold in a kid is a loss for the state, as most probably one of the parents will have to stay at home with the kid, resulting in lost income etc. Imagine what a drain these chronic conditions in kids would be for the state. Besides, if you are obese for example, you run a higher risk of presenting with other more or less serious health issues that again will affect your overall productivity in life. So again, a loss of money for the state. Plus, in countries where the state has to co-fund medicines and treatments, there is a real struggle to keep medical expenditure at the minimum possible level. I know for a fact that in my native country the state has been turning to generics (usually produced by small local companies) and that has been a huge problem for the big pharma (to the point where some of the biggest names have uprooted and left altogether). So, not everyone is in bed with the pharmaceuticals, IMO.

As for the adjuvant in the flu vaccine, I happened to participate in an advisory meeting between doctors and pharma managers at the time (I am neither though), and the fact that there is an adjuvant in one vaccine and not one in the other only affects the vaccine's immunogenicity. It does not have to do with a better or safer vaccine. Almost all of the vaccines have them to improve immunogenicity. (I know that some people claim that they are harmful etc.) Again, at the time my native country had ordered vaccines from 3 different companies to prepare for a pandemic. This is quite usual in circumstances like that. And, during that meeting, the doctors pushed against what the pharma managers where advocating, so again, people DO stand up to big pharma and not all doctors are sold to them.

(I am not trying to argue of course, just giving a few thoughts on the points raised).
 

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Or, the story of Dr.Burzynski who invented an alternative form of cancer therapy. You would not believe what the government put this man through. His therapy has a higher success rate compared to conventional methods, such as chemo and radiation. Yet, he met extreme opposition from the government. Wouldn't you think they would want to help cure cancer by any way possible? No, not if it goes against conventional methods, and especially not if it actually works!

http://vimeo.com/24821365 This movie is hard to watch, and you will cry.

Gee, I wonder why

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

From the view of someone in favor of population control:

So, what is the point of a senior citizen on Social Security? It's a drain on the system, an unprofitable, parasitic burden. Ever heard of a "death panel"? Out with the old, useless, and in with the new!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrJBY2l1MQQ

Wouldn't it be smart to have a special cancer virus in vaccines? SV-40, fact. Oops, how'd that get in there? Could this cause cancer that would kill a person after they reached retirement age?

Could vaccines be used to trigger health conditions, but not kill, young children? The health conditions would be manageable, of course, with pharmaceutical drugs. We don't want to kill the kids, because they will be needed to work. Up until they reach a good old age, that is. This is just one example.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1079259/A-vaccine-given-babies-increase-risk-childhood-asthma.html

Honestly, Becky, you're giving scientists a bit too much credit here.  Technology has simply not advanced enough to pull off this diabolical plan.

As for this, from ahimsamom:

HERE is a video in which Bill Gates openly says that vaccines, modern health care and "reproductive services" are designed to reduce the world's population. 

This has been discussed ad nauseum here before.  Bill Gates is not preaching eugenics.  He is talking about vaccines and modern health care decreasing infant and child mortality, and thereby allowing families to have fewer children (by choice!!) because they will know that they will not be losing children to illness. 

Regarding Lyme Disease as the cause of ALS, sorry, you're mistaken.  Although advanced neuro Lyme can cause some symptoms a bit similar to ALS, they are not the same disease and have totally distinct pathophysiologies.  ALS can not be treated with antibiotics.  If someone responds to antibiotics, they did not have ALS.  Period.  And to say any different is an insult to both patients dying of ALS and they physicians treating them.  I have one patient dying of ALS.  Over the past two years I've watched her go from a healthy woman to someone unable to talk, walk, or eat.  She just got a PEG tube.  I would love to be able to cure her.  I can't.  No one can.  

[Mirzam]

BeckyBird, you are wasting your breath, or should I say fingers, my dear.  I hear you and know what you are saying has truth to it but you are flogging a dead one on here.  Unfortunately the reality and enormity of this (its tentacles of control and evil stretch to every area of our lives) is too much for people to take in at this time, but it is changing, there is hope.

To the PP who posted links to quackwatch, shame on you. 

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

BeckyBird, you are wasting your breath, or should I say fingers, my dear.  I hear you and know what you are saying has truth to it but you are flogging a dead one on here.  Unfortunately the reality and enormity of this (its tentacles of control and evil stretch to every area of our lives) is too much for people to take in at this time, but it is changing, there is hope.

To the PP who posted links to quackwatch, shame on you. 

Mostly.....but not entirely.

I have heard people mention eugenics before but was never really sure what they meant.  It has planted a seed as something to look into someday.  You never know what lurkers are thinking and you are not wasting your breath.

None-the less arguing can be draining (btdt!) so know when to walk away from the keyboard.  

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 
To the PP who posted links to quackwatch, shame on you. 

Sorry, I'll stick to You Tube and whale.to from now on