or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccines, Eugenics, and Dr.Sherri Tenpenny
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccines, Eugenics, and Dr.Sherri Tenpenny - Page 3

post #41 of 107
Thread Starter 

When I logged on, I expected the worst. Thankfully, you all have proven me wrong! So, where to begin....

 

1. Instead of using the term "eugenics", maybe we can use the blanket term "population control".  Dr.Tenpenny used the term "eugenics", and this is why I repeated the term. Actually, to insert another one of my theories here, and to address super single mama, I do think this is still a form of eugenics. Eugenics upon the entire human race. Meaning, if you target an entire population with infertility and cancer/disease causing chemicals (from vaccines, plastics, GMO food, fluoride, etc. too many to list) then it will affect a large portion of the human race--the "useless eaters", the economic burdens. Eugenics in the sense that only the strongest of the race will survive.

 

Where am I getting the info? How can I come to this insane conclusion? There are some people who openly believe the earth would be better off without 90% of the population: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608026/posts

Professor Pianka and his speech at the Texas  Academy of Science. Ebola virus would be a good way to reduce population.

 

Georgia Guidestones.....a mysterious stone monument in Georgia, openly stating the desire to have a small world population (500 million). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones  The state now owns the land, and I wonder who maintains the land around the monument? Do they condone the message on the monument, about a reduced population? If I were to erect a crazy monument, then sell the land to my state, would they cut the grass for me? No way.

 

 

2. WildKingdom, it is only your belief that technology has not advanced this far, but you don't know this for sure. Your theory, and nothing more.

 

3. Fluoride causes bone cancer, yay! It dumbs you down, awesome! So, let's work to get it out of our water, shall we? You do know the Nazis used fluoride in their camps, right? And, how the very leader of our country--Bush--was by every sense a Nazi!  I am not making this up, but I do base my theories upon these facts.

 

4.Do yourself a favor, and read the links about Holdren, whom Barack Obama had appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Everywhere you look, there are folks in power who desire to lower the population.

 

 

5.WildKingdom, you are a doctor. Do you ever ask your patients about their diet? Do you ever promote healthy nutrition, and a diet free from GMOs, aspartame, chemicals, even soy (which is almost all GMO)? I'm asking because I feel very discouraged by our medical system. My relative with the brain tumor has been seen by many doctors, and she is never asked about her diet. When I've taken my son to the doctor, they never asked about his diet. They only do vaccines and prescriptions, it seems. I do hope you are one of the rare doctors who knows the importance of healthy nutrition along with conventional care.

**This does not mean that all docs are bad, or are in on this grand scheme to help control the population. No way. Doctors are great people, who want to help their patients. I even made a post where I said that peds who fire their non-vax patients are not so bad, that they are doing what they believe is right. But, considering they hold licenses, and must practice medicine along certain guidelines, I feel many doctors are limited in the care they can give. Look to the top--to the people who make the policies which the doctors must follow. At the very top of the chain, you will find the problem. **

 

I have so much more to write, and I'll be back later.

 

 

 

 

post #42 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

As for this, from ahimsamom:

 

 

 

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. 

 


Didn't realize, but here's some food for thought. Also here's an article on Bill Gates and death panels. Just putting info out there so people can check out the links and make a decision for themselves.

 

 

post #43 of 107

Wow, Alex Jones is a real crackpot!  I thought he was bad enough when I caught his radio show one Sunday, but his crackpottiness runs a lot deeper than I expected.

post #44 of 107
Thread Starter 

Yes, Alex Jones is certainly on the, well, spirited side. You really have to research what he says, because when he starts to rant, new listeners usually shut down. There are certainly other people who are much calmer, who also study this awful subject. In fact, the reason I listen to the show is mainly for the guest interviews, because it is one of the only alternative media stations that will actually allow the guests to speak at length. Dr.Sherri Tenpenny appeared on a Dr.Oz show once, and it was a joke. She was sitting in the audience, not even on stage, and said a few sentences at most. That's all they would let her do. I know why he had her on--to pretend that his vaccine show was balanced, with the pros and cons of vaccinating. It wasn't balanced. Fail.

 

Catherine Austin Fitts, an extremely intelligent woman, former Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner. Catherine was one of the first to warn of an approaching housing bubble. Her prediction that a 'strong dollar policy' would ultimately lead to a weakened federal credit is currently being proven correct. She  now owns and operates Solari. From her knowledge and extensive research, and from her experience within the system, she also believes in this idea of depopulation. She has done more research than you or I, so you might want to hear what she has to say. Here is an article from Catherine about the Swine Flu vaccine.... quote, "I believe one of the goals of the swine flu vaccine is depopulation."    Wasn't this one of the first vaccines that was adamantly pushed on pregnant women? Without proper testing? Here's her article. http://solari.com/blog/swine-flu-what-i-believe/

 

Something I find interesting....so many people come out with the truth after they've retired, or changed careers. This is because if you want to keep your high paying job, you need to keep your mouth shut. This is why you will never find the truth from folks who are still working within the system.

 

post #45 of 107

Hmmm...I'm fully convinced that there are eugenicists out there, and some of them have the money and resources to be practicing eugenics by pushing agendas and propagandizing.

 

However, it doesn't even make sense to me for vaccines to be part of that.  Vaccinations have saved millions of lives in areas where eugenicists would typically appreciate much lower populations.

post #46 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View PostBill 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.


Yes this.  Previous poster who said this is kind of coming off as a nutter (no offense intended). 

 

Also this re- John Holdren (who does not want to kill your babies):

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php

post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMommy2007 View Post





Yes this.  Previous poster who said this is kind of coming off as a nutter (no offense intended). 

 

Also this re- John Holdren (who does not want to kill your babies):

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php

 

I find it interesting that for simply putting up links and information so that people can make educated and informed decisions for themselves makes one a "nutter". I research and study history in order to learn more about what is going on with our present day political system and agenda. Just because I choose not to blindly believe everything our leaders say and choose to dig deeper does not make me a "nutter". Name calling really doesn't get us anywhere.

 

The fact that someone in power in our country has written a book like that simply frightens me. Maybe it is just "policies being discussed in an academic matter" but why do these ideas need to be discussed and written about in such detail if no one is going to carry out the plan? I don't understand why someone would write in detail about such a sick and twisted pan for society if they have no intention of implementing any of those ideas.

 

Also, I would love to see some information on how vaccines "save" lives. I have seen a lot of evidence on the contrary, so I would love to read whatever information you can supply.

 

If you believe in population control then I guess eugenics may not seem like a big deal to you. I truly believe that instead of trying to control the amount of children people have, perhaps we should teach people about living sustainably. Grow your own food. Quit selling GMO, self terminating seeds to third word countries. Raise your own backyard chickens. Use solar power. Learn about water catchment. These are ideas that can have a HUGE impact on humans, the way we use our natural resources and the way we live, without having to think about lowering populations through any means--humane or inhumane.

post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahimsamom View Post

If you believe in population control then I guess eugenics may not seem like a big deal to you. I truly believe that instead of trying to control the amount of children people have, perhaps we should teach people about living sustainably. Grow your own food. Quit selling GMO, self terminating seeds to third word countries. Raise your own backyard chickens. Use solar power. Learn about water catchment. These are ideas that can have a HUGE impact on humans, the way we use our natural resources and the way we live, without having to think about lowering populations through any means--humane or inhumane.

 

There are some pretty distinct differences between eugenics, and population control though.  And yes, there are options that can be used to live more sustainably, but they are not available yet to the entire population, as even though they save money long term, they can be very expensive at the outset to implement. 
 

 

post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahimsamom View Post



 

IIf you believe in population control then I guess eugenics may not seem like a big deal to you. I truly believe that instead of trying to control the amount of children people have, perhaps we should teach people about living sustainably. Grow your own food. Quit selling GMO, self terminating seeds to third word countries. Raise your own backyard chickens. Use solar power. Learn about water catchment. These are ideas that can have a HUGE impact on humans, the way we use our natural resources and the way we live, without having to think about lowering populations through any means--humane or inhumane.


 

That is some serious first-world privilege there.
 

 

post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYMommy2007 View Post





Yes this.  Previous poster who said this is kind of coming off as a nutter (no offense intended). 

 

Also this re- John Holdren (who does not want to kill your babies):

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php



No offense intended to the term "nutter"?  Calling someone crazy for what they believe?

 

I don't believe in God; does that mean it would be ok for me to call believers "nutters"?  Quacks?  

post #51 of 107

while I'm not much of a conspiracy believer.. the video on Burzynski and reading an excerpt of Holdren's co-authored book makes me beyond anxious..

post #52 of 107


Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

That is some serious first-world privilege there.


Really? Growing your own food, raising chickens, and catching rainwater is "serious first-world privilege?"

 

post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post


Quote:


Really? Growing your own food, raising chickens, and catching rainwater is "serious first-world privilege?"

 


No.  Touting it as some sort of cure-all for the problems of developing countries is, though.  Re-read her quote: 
 

 

Quote:
 

IIf you believe in population control then I guess eugenics may not seem like a big deal to you. I truly believe that instead of trying to control the amount of children people have, perhaps we should teach people about living sustainably. Grow your own food. Quit selling GMO, self terminating seeds to third word countries. Raise your own backyard chickens. Use solar power. Learn about water catchment. These are ideas that can have a HUGE impact on humans, the way we use our natural resources and the way we live, without having to think about lowering populations through any means--humane or inhumane.

 

 If you don't see the problem in that, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I think it's stunning that someone thinks that they can waltz into a developing country and tell them to raise chickens and use solar power, and that will cure all their ills. 

post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post




No.  Touting it as some sort of cure-all for the problems of developing countries is, though.  Re-read her quote: 
 

 

 

 If you don't see the problem in that, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I think it's stunning that someone thinks that they can waltz into a developing country and tell them to raise chickens and use solar power, and that will cure all their ills. 

 

Where did she say anything about "waltzing" into a developing country?  I understood her post to be about the U.S.
 

 

post #55 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



 

Where did she say anything about "waltzing" into a developing country?  I understood her post to be about the U.S.
 

 

Because she was talking about Bill Gates' comments about vaccines being used to slow population growth in the third world. That's what her comment stemmed from.
post #56 of 107
Thread Starter 

Thanks to everyone who clicked on the links and decided to read the material. Even if you completely disagree with me, at least you investigated it for yourself, and did not rely on someone else to tell you what to think. This is all that matters!

post #57 of 107



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post




No.  Touting it as some sort of cure-all for the problems of developing countries is, though.  Re-read her quote: 
 

 

 

 If you don't see the problem in that, I'm not sure what to tell you.  I think it's stunning that someone thinks that they can waltz into a developing country and tell them to raise chickens and use solar power, and that will cure all their ills. 



 Don't see anywhere where this poster claims that these things will cure all 3rd world country ills - talk about a sweeping generalization.  Specifically she says that "These are ideas that can have a HUGE impact on humans, the way we use our natural resources and the way we live" I think that is a pretty general and accurate statement myself.

post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post




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


Not saying I think the above are credible sources - but do you know anything about Steven Barrett? The man is a retired psychiatrist. He has not practiced since the early 90's. He is a self proclaimed expert in EVERYTHING alternative despite have NO TRAINING whatsoever. He has been called on on this fact in court numerous times. He has dedicated his life to discrediting any alternative practitioner and alternative forms of medicine including acupuncture, chiropractic and ANY nutritional supplements. The man is not exactly unbaised (look into his "company" and it's funding sources) and hardly a credible source IMO.  
 

 

post #59 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post




Not saying I think the above are credible sources - but do you know anything about Steven Barrett? The man is a retired psychiatrist. He has not practiced since the early 90's. He is a self proclaimed expert in EVERYTHING alternative despite have NO TRAINING whatsoever. He has been called on on this fact in court numerous times. He has dedicated his life to discrediting any alternative practitioner and alternative forms of medicine including acupuncture, chiropractic and ANY nutritional supplements. The man is not exactly unbaised (look into his "company" and it's funding sources) and hardly a credible source IMO.  
 

 


If you believe he isn't credible, despite his background and standing within the medical community, that's your prerogative. However, Burzynski's infractions are a matter of public record.

 

 

post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post




Not saying I think the above are credible sources - but do you know anything about Steven Barrett? The man is a retired psychiatrist. He has not practiced since the early 90's. He is a self proclaimed expert in EVERYTHING alternative despite have NO TRAINING whatsoever. He has been called on on this fact in court numerous times. He has dedicated his life to discrediting any alternative practitioner and alternative forms of medicine including acupuncture, chiropractic and ANY nutritional supplements. The man is not exactly unbaised (look into his "company" and it's funding sources) and hardly a credible source IMO.  
 

 


Worse he is a de-licensed psychiartist.

 

 

 

Quote:
If you believe he isn't credible, despite his background and standing within the medical community, that's your prerogative. However, Burzynski's infractions are a matter of public record.

 

 

 

Who is Stephen Barrett?

 

 

 

 

 
Quote:

 

It is common knowledge that Stephen Barrett has been Officially Declared by the US Court System, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court Decision (NCAHF v King Bio), to be "Biased, and unworthy of credibility."

What that statement means, in layman's terms, simply, is that it is common knowledge that OFFICIALLY - NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE LEGALLY RELIED UPON.

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccines, Eugenics, and Dr.Sherri Tenpenny