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 5

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxella View Post

Is it possible? 

 

Sure, it's possible.  It's possible that aliens have already landed and are slowly taking over the world.  It's possible we're all robots and we don't even know it.  It's possible we're already genetically engineered and implanted with memories and thoughts that are not really their own.  It's possible the black helicoptors really are following you because you're so important and have figured out our evil plot to take over the world. 

 

Is it likely?

 

No.



While humorous, the fault in your comment is that BeckyBird provided links and evidence to support her "theories", while you just demean and make light of an issue that many people take quite seriously.

 

post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahimsamom View Post

While humorous, the fault in your comment is that BeckyBird provided links and evidence to support her "theories", while you just demean and make light of an issue that many people take quite seriously.

 


The world population is climbing all the time.. if there are folks out there trying to control population through sneaky, underhanded devices.. they aren't doing a good job.

http://galen.metapath.org/popclk.html
post #83 of 107

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahimsamom View Post

While humorous, the fault in your comment is that BeckyBird provided links and evidence to support her "theories", while you just demean and make light of an issue that many people take quite seriously.

 


Citing youtube does not provide evidence. 

 

As philo said, the world population is growing and people are living longer than ever before.  This "theory" has no basis whatsoever. 
 

 

post #84 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxella View Post

Quote:

Citing youtube does not provide evidence. 

 

As philo said, the world population is growing and people are living longer than ever before.  This "theory" has no basis whatsoever.  

 

Bolding mine.

 

It depends on what the Youtube is of. There are some fantastic things on youtube - TED talks, interviews by respected journalists, discussions and reference to studies, etc.  There are also hoaxes, videos of singing cats, etc.  winky.gif

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 9/30/11 at 4:34pm
post #85 of 107

I do not agree that people at the top of the pyramid  are trying to lower population growth through drugs, toxins, etc.    I just don't see it, and current population patterns do not support it.   Companies want money - dead people do not pay for stuff.  

 

I do think that drug companies probably do create drugs that create health issues - long term patients equals ka-ching$$$$.  Smoking companies deliberately put addictive substances in their cigarettes, even when they knew cigarettes were not good for people.

 

At a minimum, even if they do not set out to create sickness for their own gain, I do not think they (and I can add in manufacturers here, plastic manufacturers are one) overly care if their product creates ill health.  Profits before people.  I think a lot of these things are across the board though - I am not sure how it plays out with regards to vaccines.  

 

All of this is very cynical - and I do not think individual people of any industry are automatically evil.  I am looking at this from a macro not micro level.  I also think companies fool and delude themselves and the public- they do studies that show no horrible short term reactions, but (unless I am wrong and I may be) I suspect they fall down on long term studies and how things interact with other things. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 9/30/11 at 3:31pm
post #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahimsamom View Post

While humorous, the fault in your comment is that BeckyBird provided links and evidence to support her "theories", while you just demean and make light of an issue that many people take quite seriously.

 



 "Evidence."  In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 "Evidence."  In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."


ROTFLMAO.gif
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxella View Post

Is it possible? 

 

Sure, it's possible.  It's possible that aliens have already landed and are slowly taking over the world.  It's possible we're all robots and we don't even know it.  It's possible we're already genetically engineered and implanted with memories and thoughts that are not really their own.  It's possible the black helicoptors really are following you because you're so important and have figured out our evil plot to take over the world. 

 

Is it likely?

 

No.



Is it possible that a giant, invisible human-like being created the universe, impregnated one woman to give birth to a kid who could do magic who would save the rest of humanity, and the only clues would be a series of short stories written over many years by different people, and would be interpreted as many different ways as there are people?

 

Sure, it's possible.

 

Is it likely?

 

No.

 

I guess mocking other's beliefs is perfectly acceptable.  

 

Such is the hypocrisy of MDC - the modern medical establishment is out to birth rape women!  OBs only want to cut you open!  There is a vast conspiracy to destroy all foreskins!  Doctors are clueless!  Oh, but when it's something that you are unfamiliar with or don't quite get, it's fair game for condescension?  Huh.

post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Is it possible that a giant, invisible human-like being created the universe, impregnated one woman to give birth to a kid who could do magic who would save the rest of humanity, and the only clues would be a series of short stories written over many years by different people, and would be interpreted as many different ways as there are people?

 

Sure, it's possible.

 

Is it likely?

 

No.

 

I guess mocking other's beliefs is perfectly acceptable.  

 

Such is the hypocrisy of MDC - the modern medical establishment is out to birth rape women!  OBs only want to cut you open!  There is a vast conspiracy to destroy all foreskins!  Doctors are clueless!  Oh, but when it's something that you are unfamiliar with or don't quite get, it's fair game for condescension?  Huh.




Couldn't have said it any better myself.

post #90 of 107
Quote:
Is it possible that a giant, invisible human-like being created the universe, impregnated one woman to give birth to a kid who could do magic who would save the rest of humanity, and the only clues would be a series of short stories written over many years by different people, and would be interpreted as many different ways as there are people?

Wow. It sounds so implausible when you put it that way.
post #91 of 107
Thread Starter 

 The theory of population reduction is commonly linked to outlandish theories, such as space aliens. First, people assume that if you believe in one theory, you automatically believe in other theories. This is not fair at all, nor does it disprove my original theory.

This is straight out of the playbook, and it's as obvious as they come--try to discredit a person by mocking them, and categorizing them into the "crazy alien shapeshifter conspiracy type of theorist". So the common person, who will not look into the matter, will simply laugh it off and move on.

 

I hope you are not laughing off the issues I've brought up. I hope you at least read some of the links.  I will list the important issues again, and please tell me what you think. I understand that most people will not share my conclusion, because we all have a different way of thinking. However, what do you think? I'm genuinely curious. Do you see a problem at all? Or is the only problem that you don't like the way I think of our government, of our world leaders? Is that what bothers you the most here? My thought "crimes"?

 

This is what bothers me, and why I've decided that it's deliberately--not accidentally--evil. The list can be much longer.

 

*GMOs.....................evidence of harm when consumed, threat to natural organisms, almost all soy is genetically modified

*Fluoride...................in water supply, recommended for babies

*Aspartame..............known to be harmful before it was unleashed, and it the way it was approved exposes the corrupt system

*Vaccines................adverse reactions downplayed, under reported; often contaminated, chemicals cause infertility, aluminum

*Depleted Uranium....danger known beforehand, now babies are born deformed, and troops are sick/dying. So evil!

*Economy................NAFTA, bad deal on purpose! world economies crashing by design

*History................... the Nazis never left the US! It is true. We also have a real history of eugenics.

*Drug companies......come on!

*Gov't corruption........does anybody argue with this one? It's common knowledge

 

(Notice, I didn't even bring up chemtrails and 9/11, which are not proven....yet. They are still theories, while the above list is provable.)

 

So, does any of this bother you? Of course it does. I just happen to believe it's intentional, deliberate. You might not believe it is, but I don't understand why I'm mocked. Surely, there are ways pop.control can be done, and surely it has been done in the past. It is not a stretch of the imagination to think it's being done on purpose now. It's in our history!  But, you decide to put me in the alien robot conspiracy group. Do you see the problem with that? This  tactic does not help you prove your point--it only diverts the very real conversation. By mocking my theory, you have done absolutely nothing to disprove it.

 

What do you people think? So far, I've heard nothing but mockery. Do any of these real issues bother you at all? Or is it easier to turn a blind eye, and make fun of me? So far, the most outrage you've expressed is with my way of thinking--not with any of the issues I've raised. Apparently, poisoning kids and bombing innocent people is not as bad as me pointing out the problem. ??

 

 

 

P.S. Corruption in the gov't and drug companies should not be tolerated. We all know it exists, but it has become so commonplace and almost expected. This is not ok. You can believe it is only greed that drives these people--not deliberate harm, like I believe-- but that is still no excuse for what they do. I believe it's deliberate, you believe it's only greed-driven, but whatever it is, it's not right. Have we lost our standards? When did this become acceptable?

post #92 of 107

Becky (serious question - not mocking)

 

Why do you think they would want to lower the population?  Dead people do not buy products, and they want people to buy products.

 

 

post #93 of 107

.

This thread made me curious as to why people are drawn to conspiracy theories and his reasons make a lot of sense.

Why are conspiracy theories so popular?

 

By BobLloyd

 

Stories are so much easier

The web is full of the most amazing conspiracy theories ranging from the claims that no-one has landed on the moon, through the CIA planning 9/11, right up to earthquakes being caused by testing experimental weapons. Somewhere in between comes the idea that climate change is a conspiracy between various agencies such as governments, light-bulb manufacturers, scientists, and environmentalists.

Along the way we have overlaps in irrationality between those who claim we are all descended from alien races, that the world is going to end sometime soon, and that there is some all-encompassing energy field we can tap into. Entertaining though these stories are, we might wonder why so many people are drawn into them and believe them so firmly.

The search for easy answers

What causes climate change? That is not an easy question to answer and it take years of consistent, painstaking research to identify the factors involved, their relative importance, and their interactions. It takes a long time to develop the technology to provide the appropriate measurements to test the predictions from theories. To understand how all this works, to understand the scientific details, take some serious effort in study.

Many people either are not able to, or are unwilling to devote the time to studying the science behind it, and therefore are looking for a conclusion they can grasp with less effort. Simple explanations would suffice if they were available, and many people are happy to go with simplistic explanations. That's often the basis of prejudice.

Some things are complex and in order to understand them, we have to make an effort. Conspiracy theories and irrational explanations cut out that time-consuming learning process and jump straight to the desired conclusions.

Deep suspicion

Many people are deeply suspicious of governments and official bodies. Because they distrust the drug corporations or governments, the assume that everything they say must by definition be false. Any of their actions must have some hidden motive which will invalidate whatever they claim.

In the case of governments, particularly in the US, some people resent the role of government in regulating public affairs. Brought up on an ideology of unfettered freedom and opposition to taxation, they see the growth of government as being against their interests, and are therefore predisposed to oppose government actions.

In the case of drug companies, they may feel that since every human condition is medicalised for profit, that therefore the whole of medicine is untrustworthy. They throw the baby out with the bath water.

Not understanding the need for evidence

Anyone can make any claims they like and the only way we can tell which is right and which is wrong, is by looking at the evidence. But if we have already ruled out the trustworthiness of anyone who might offer evidence, we won't even consider it.

In the absence of any evidence, one story is as credible as the next. So for example, once we have dispensed with the idea that clinical medicine can be trusted, we reject any medical explanation for any treatment. That opens the way for us to propose another alternative explanation, without evidence. Since we don't accept clinical medicine as offering reliable evidence, we don't need to produce any ourselves.

But the problem with this approach is that even if we dismiss established knowledge, an alternative still needs to establish its claim using reliable evidence. It doesn't become credible simply because the believer has rejected conventional, evidenced knowledge.

Ignorance of science

There are very many strange theories about undetected energies, the properties of various substances such as crystals and magnets, and sound and light. But in all cases, science has already established a wealth of knowledge about these subjects. We already know a great deal about energy, its various forms and the means by which one is converted to another.

Ignorance of these processes, these basic scientific concepts and facts, makes people gullible to fanciful claims about the property of things. Sometimes there is some effort made to use scientific terms but without the necessary rigour to give them meaning. For example, some people will talk about the fundamental frequencies of crystals, or the biophysical effects of magnets.

But they won't realise that all objects have a fundamental frequency and that crystals remain inert until excited by a strong external energy source. The crystal itself will do absolutely nothing. They will think that because a magnet attracts metal, it must affect your blood circulation because blood contains iron, and of course iron is magnetic. But they don't know that blood is not magnetic.

Notoriety in opposition

There are some people who enjoy standing out from the crowd. They like to be the centre of attention and enjoy being noticed by other people. Some do this naturally because they are congenial engaging people who develop their own popularity. Some have talents and expertise that naturally raise them to public attention.

But there are others who would like the attention, but lack the means of getting it. Adopting an oppositional stance provides some attention. Creating or supporting wacky theories serves the same purpose. Riding on the waggon of doubt, exploiting uncertainty, encouraging confusion, and spreading unsupported stories such as conspiracy theories, provides them with just the attention they want.

Running a business

Businesses run by selling things to people willing to pay for them. If there's a market already, we can join it by offering our products. But it is more profitable if a new market can be created in which we are automatically the market leader. And if we can sell a new belief, so much the better.

That is why during the alternative medicine boom of the 90s, so many differentiated theories of alternative medicine flourished. People started claiming to diagnose illnesses by looking at the iris in the eye, by pressing the feet, cracking backs, and all sorts of other approaches. Inspiration was often drawn from obscure mystical theories from the East.

Some people claimed water has a memory (it doesn't), others that healing energy can be transferred to people (it doesn't exist), or that you needed your chakras aligning (they don't exist either). The claims of alternative medicine have been scientifically investigated and consistently found to be groundless. It hasn't stopped people making money out of it.

Running a business based on unevidenced claims would normally run the risk of prosecution for fraud but alternative medicine can avoid the charge by carefully dressing the therapies in beliefs. It is highly profitable but also ethically highly questionable.

The need for excitement

If there was a healing energy floating around ready to be used to help people, that would be really cool. If it was possible to cure people with water that had a memory, that would be great. If you really could diagnose illness by pressing parts of the foot, that would save hospitals a fortune. If there were channels and chakras and doshas, and meridians and the like, it would be interesting.

But enjoying the success of a claim for treatment without showing the evidence, is just an illusion. It's believing in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, magic. It enjoying that child-like fascination with fantasy, made up stories, imaginary characters, fictitious events, and exciting challenges.

Without a basic understanding of science or human biology, there are many fantasies about medical treatment and the causes of illness that persist in this fantasy state. It provides excitement for those wanting a better, simpler reality. Instead of the complexities of metabolic problems, we have some unbalanced chakra. And as long as you reject the science totally, you can maintain the fiction.
 

Rationalism is open-minded

It may seem a dull place where everything turns out to be fairly complicated and knowledge is accumulated by slow steady work. And being skeptical about new theories is being closed-minded, right? Wrong.

Science works by challenging theories, by questioning results, by looking for contradictions and evidence against the claims. Anyone can come along with a better explanation at any time and have it considered and checked by others. Scientists are extremely open-minded because they are driven by the desire to understand what is happening. They want to know the truth. They will consider any explanation on its merits. But they're not easily fooled.

If someone proposes for example, healing energy, it will be taken seriously and subjected to critical scrutiny. First in the list of questions is "what evidence is there for its existence?" That's not being close-minded but open-minded: they are open to consider anything and are inviting the presentation of new information in the form of evidence.

Theories are not all equivalent. Some are just wacky and stupid. Some are just plain wrong. Some are deliberately misinforming. Some are bordering on criminal in their social impact. We need to be able to filter out the silly and misleading ones, the venal and the dishonest, and we do that by using evidence. There's no shortcut.

 

post #94 of 107



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

 

 

 

 

What do you people think? So far, I've heard nothing but mockery. Do any of these real issues bother you at all? Or is it easier to turn a blind eye, and make fun of me? So far, the most outrage you've expressed is with my way of thinking--not with any of the issues I've raised. Apparently, poisoning kids and bombing innocent people is not as bad as me pointing out the problem. ??

 

 

A lot of those issues bother me... and I don't turn a blind eye to them. I also don't mind folks disagreeing with our government or believing people are corrupt. There is just such a huge paranoid leap to poisoning children on purpose and some of your other points. Also, you seem to be astounded that we believe our sources for information and we are astounded you put faith in your sources. It's the same thing. You gotta believe somebody, right? I don't put you in a category with people who believe in space aliens etc... I just think you read some stuff that scares you and you don't know how to tease out fact from fiction. That's what I think.

post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by savannah smiles View Post

 First in the list of questions is "what evidence is there for its existence?" That's not being close-minded but open-minded: they are open to consider anything and are inviting the presentation of new information in the form of evidence.Theories are not all equivalent. Some are just wacky and stupid. Some are just plain wrong. Some are deliberately misinforming. Some are bordering on criminal in their social impact. We need to be able to filter out the silly and misleading ones, the venal and the dishonest, and we do that by using evidence. There's no shortcut.

 


Again, yet the vast majority of the world believes in a higher being, for which there is NO evidence. 

 

post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzer Beater View Post

 

 

A lot of those issues bother me... and I don't turn a blind eye to them. I also don't mind folks disagreeing with our government or believing people are corrupt. There is just such a huge paranoid leap to poisoning children on purpose and some of your other points. Also, you seem to be astounded that we believe our sources for information and we are astounded you put faith in your sources. It's the same thing. You gotta believe somebody, right? I don't put you in a category with people who believe in space aliens etc... I just think you read some stuff that scares you and you don't know how to tease out fact from fiction. That's what I think.

 

Blue mine.  I think that is quite the assumption, and a little...arrogant?

 

Your world view differs from hers - I do not say you are incapable of teasing out fact from fiction because of this. 
 

 

post #97 of 107

She asked what I thought, so I told her. She may think the same of me, since we put our faith in different sources, and that's okay. I don't think it's arrogant. She seemed quite curious how people were reacting to things she said, and I gave an honest answer. I also shared with her that we agree on some things.

post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by savannah smiles View Post

.

This thread made me curious as to why people are drawn to conspiracy theories and his reasons make a lot of sense.

Why are conspiracy theories so popular?


 

 

That's a cute opinion piece.  It's also naive and idealistic.

 

Evidence is subjective.  What kind of "evidence" would be acceptable for theories like this?  Is mainstream media the only acceptable source?  Because someone provides a blog link or YouTube video and they are vilified.  The bottom line is that we aren't always given the full story by the media.  MDC posters know this, right?  Co-sleeping is good, and CIO bad, though the "evidence" on these things is sketchy.

 

Did you know that the CIA placed journalists in news agencies all over the world to manipulate information being released, and to gather information?  It was called Operation Mockingbird.  That's not a conspiracy theory.  That's fact.

http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

 

Did you know that the CIA also did mind control experiments on unwilling participants, many of these experiments using LSD?  Again, not a conspiracy theory.  Project MKULTRA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_ultra

 

Did you know that the US recruited Nazi scientists after WWII, and many of those helped lay the foundation for MKULTRA?  Operation Paperclip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

 

Oh, and remember when the US apologized to Guatemala for infecting hundreds of unwitting participants with STDs?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39456324/ns/health-sexual_health/t/us-apologizes-guatemala-std-experiments/

 

And the Tuskegee experiment, which went on for 40 (!) years, denying poor black men a diagnosis and treatment for syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

There are many more examples of medical experimentation on unknowing patients:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988_2.html

 

Really, you can pretend that the government and powers that be are good and altruistic and that there is transparency in their projects and motives, but that is simply not rooted in fact or history. It's an incredibly naive world view, and you can mock and laugh at those who are less trusting than you, but don't ever forget that conspiracy theories exist because there always have been and always will be actual conspiracies.  Fundamental human ethics and morals haven't changed so greatly since many of these experiments were done; the documents are simply being declassified now.  Pretending that people were evil in the 1950s but wouldn't dare think of such transgressions now is just ignorant.

 

post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Blue mine.  I think that is quite the assumption, and a little...arrogant?

 

Your world view differs from hers - I do not say you are incapable of teasing out fact from fiction because of this.  

 



It definitely seems arrogant to me, that she assumes that she is right and any other view is wrong, based on nothing but skepticism.

post #100 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post





It definitely seems arrogant to me, that she assumes that she is right and any other view is wrong, based on nothing but skepticism.



I don't assume "any" other view is wrong. I assume that OP has read some things that scared her and she is passing on that information- she's talked about eugenics/population control, vaccines, big pharma, cancer, mainstream doctors, Nazis, the Bush family, extreme environmentalists, aspartame, fluoride, managed health care, GMOs, forced sterilization and Bill Gates all in a few breaths! She sounds overwhelmed.

 

 

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