By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM
According to Webster’s Dictionary, “to censor” means “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.”
Censorship occurs when a group of people – or organization(s) – impose their political or moral values on others by suppressing their words, images, ideas and now, even their thoughts, if that information is contrary to the suppressor’s stated opinions. Sometimes referred to as ‘collectivist thinking,’ collectivism promotes a group’s opinion as right by making the individual’s opinion wrong, even labeling contrarian views as “dangerous misinformation.” In a collectivist society, people identify with the group’s mantra and run roughshod over the views of the individual. Thus collectivist thinking and censorship is contrary to our long-held values of America individualism.
The intolerance of infection – a topic we explore in our MVI Boot Camp Herd Immunity module – is being used to eliminate the free flow of information and will decimate the medical needs of a large number of individuals. There are more than 130 bills currently being considered that could elimininate our rights to self-determination regarding our health, undermining freedoms long embraced by our society. To keep abreast of vaccine legislation in your state, go to NVIC Advocacy and sign up for free alerts.
California’s new bill, SB 276, is perhaps the most egregious of all.
If you live in CA, here is a flier you can print and hand out to fight this horrid legislation introduced by the dastardly Senator Dick Pan. Please share these documents with friends in California, and you have the author’s permission to change the document to represent YOUR state.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab The Global Plan
On March 19, 2019, the WHO hosted a gathering in Geneva with a policy meeting of its Global health partners. The purpose of this 3-day meeting was to develop a “new vision and strategy for vaccines and immunization” for the period 2021-2030. The WHO released this as part of the meeting’s summary:
“People must be at the center of healthcare and their free and equal rights to essential healthcare services such as vaccinations must be observed throughout their life-course, without discrimination,” said Ms Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations. “There is no such thing as a right to refuse vaccines when the consequences of doing so is to be borne by others and undermine the rights of others to health, as recognized in the International Human Rights Framework.”
What does that mean in plain English?
- Vaccination is to be considered an essential health care service.
- Vaccination is to be cradle-to-grave – actually pre-birth to grave – with the addition of vaccination during pregnancy.
- By saying, “there is no such thing as a RIGHT to Refuse,” exemptions will be eliminated worldwide, a violation of at least 7 of the 10 tenants of the Nuremberg code.
Early Censorship
In 2015, I was censored and nearly refused entry into Australia to speak at seven relatively small Family Living conferences scheduled for five cities along the east coast of the continent. Contrary to the twisted reports, I was going there as an invited guest to be a speaker among several panelists. The trolls were activated and campaigned heavily to keep me out of the country. They actually caused an international incident.
The vitriol has continued and in fact, is much worse in 2019 then it was merely four years ago. Here’s one example, from the online edition of The Spectator, of the hundreds of accusations presented as fact against those who question vaccines.
“For some people, the astonishing benefits of vaccination are a lesson which they seem determined not to learn. The ‘anti-vaxxer’ movement has instead managed to convince itself that vaccination is a form of oppressive government control over a country’s citizens. It is a deeply irresponsible falsehood being spread through social media…
The article goes on to describe anti-vaxxers as “deranged conspiracy theorists” and that telling parents it is wrong or criminal to question vaccines “would be a gift to the conspiracy theorists.” Note that this is listed as a ‘leading article.’ It should be posted as an op-ed opinion piece. The author’s name isn’t listed and there is no adherence to basic journalistic principles: presenting information from both sides.
But articles like this are leading the charge to justify nanny-state laws and egregious public health campaigns. States and countries are currently considering laws to make discussing what has been labeled as “misinformation on vaccination” a criminal offense.
If those laws are passed, social media and retail giants such as Amazon will be forced to eliminate all vaccine information that isn’t lock-step with the government’s message or face criminal prosecution. Some public libraries are already considering removing vaccine and autism books from their shelves, amounting to literal book burning.
What in the world are they going to do with the thousands of scientific articles and studies published in peer-reviewed journals showing problems caused by vaccines?
These are staggering actions, showing complete disrespect for American constitutionally guaranteed principles of free speech. Haven’t we fought wars over retaining our right to free flow of ideas and freedom of speech?
The WHO declared “vaccine hesitancy” among the top 10 global health risks in 2019. What does that really mean? With the US vaccination rate hovering around 95% and the global vaccination rate approaching 73% for all available vaccines, why is a small percentage of either completely or partially unvaccinated children such a global threat?
Follow the money
Unvaccinated children per se are not a threat to public health; collectively, they are a threat to the vaccine industry’s bottom line. If someone actually funded and completed a sizable vax vs unvaxxed study, a monumental paradigm shift would occur. To use a current political analogy here, it’s like the bomb that exploded with the release of the Mueller Report. Those who were expecting the report to fully incriminate the president are sorting through the cognitive dissonance that resulted when the report was not in line with their expectations.
If the vax vs unvaxxed study were completed, those who expect it to completely shut down the anti-vax discussion will also experience explosive cognitive dissonance. The study would no doubt prove, once and for all, that unvaccinated kids are much more healthy than vaccinated kids and would expose one of the biggest, multi-generational lies ever told – that vaccines are harmless and necessary. The Emperor would be totally naked. That’s a result that pharma just can’t risk; it would permanently destroy their revenue model.
If you’re a business owner, consider this:
How would you like 4 million, government-guaranteed new customers every year? (number of annual births in the US) How would you like to have laws in place, forcing people to buy multiples of your product? (multiple doses of 16 vaccines) What if you had no requirement to make a safe product because you have government protection against all liability, even if your product harms your customer? In fact, what if your product was so unsafe, the US Supreme Court labeled it as “unavoidably unsafe” but you could sell it to your customers anyway?! What if this defective product brought in billions of dollars in year-after-year revenues? Ohh! – and what if your product injured your customer and you could sell your customer additional products to solve the problem your product caused, adding billions more to your bottom line? (drugs to treat vaccine side effects.)
Pretty sweet deal, eh? It would be brilliant if it were not so sinister.
TIME TO TAKE ACTION
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently said that our country was built on protecting the rights of minorities. Our constitutional republic has always protected the rights of minorities. We all know that a person’s color, creed, religion, and gender is legally protected against discrimination. But with the censorship of the vaccine debate, all discussions on safety stop. All discussion on how to improve the product aren’t entertained, even though exploring safer vaccines was required by law with the passage of the National Vaccine Childhood Injury Act in 1986. And because every vaccine that is approved creates an avalanche of money for everyone in the supply chain – manufacturers, distributors, hospitals and doctors – an intelligent discussion about removing unnecessary vaccination is impossible. For example, why do American children need 4 doses of polio vaccination since there has been no wild poliovirus in the Western hemisphere since 1991?
RFK went on to say,
“Right now I’m thinking of how blatant, how anti-democratic and fundamentally anti-American the censorship has become. They won’t debate us. Their only weapon is to silence us.”
Ai Weiwei, China’s most famous living artist, is also an activist. He uses his art as a form of social engagement, calling attention to China’s human rights violations. In a country where free speech is not recognized as a right, he’s been beaten by the police, has lived under house arrest, has had his newly-built studio bulldozed by local officials and is constantly subjected to surveillance. As an independent thinker who is willing to risk exposing his government’s wrong-doings, he is viewed as a threat to “harmonious society.”
We take free speech for granted in the US. But our ability to openly discuss vaccination travesties and expose our government’s wrong-doings is being taken away. It is being replaced with vaccine dogma and CDC propaganda we are not allowed to refute.
Will we soon face the same punishments that have been poured out on Ai Weiwei?
Before it gets to that place, we just actively fight back.
- We need to point out that Public Health is more than just 100% vaccination rates and a small number of infections.
- Public health has become obsessed with the extinction of a few pathogens. Shouldn’t public health be obsessed with identifying why 1 in 5 children have learning disabilities and removing the cause?
- Public health has become completely intolerant of a fever and a rash.
- Public health needs to see that there is a monumental health crisis in our children and be FORCED to examine the connection between injecting foreign matter and ill-health.
ACTION ITEMS:
We can’t sit back and wait for someone to solve this for us. The White Knight on a White Horse is not going to show up to save the day. We need to put all hands on deck. Get busy. Get active. Do your part. Here’s a suggestion as a place to start:
- Write a one-page letter, telling your story of injury, telling your story of personal and professional censorship and then FAX it to:
- The National Coalition Against Censorship – they don’t have to agree with us, but they MUST not stop our speech https://ncac.org/report-censorship
- Choose organizations on this page and fax your letter to them: https://ncac.org/free-expression-network
- Find fax numbers for your state and national legislators. They need 1000s of these letters.
Also – take “left/right politics” out of these suggestions, and give this some thought:
- What organizations should we approach to discuss the censorship of vaccine information?
- Campaign for Liberty?
- The Tea Party?
- The ACLU? They have fought – and won – many free speech cases.
- Maybe even the NRA? Don’t automatically snub that idea and rule it out. They’re big. They’re well funded. They have a platform. They support Second Amendment rights; would they support our First Amendment rights?
- What individuals should we approach? (please think platform, not politics here)
- Candace Owen – Please help me to find a way to get a copy of VAXXED into the hands of Candace Owens. She needs to know about the CDC whistleblower who exposed that black boys have been targeted.
- Branden Straka – with #WalkAway. After all, it was Adam Schiff (D) who contacted Facebook and Amazon to start the elimination of the vaccine discussions on social media.
- Tucker Carlson – It is rumored his son had a reaction to a flu shot and he’s a big proponent of free speech, even when he disagrees about the content of that speech.
- Mark Levin and/or Judge Jeanine – They are both huge proponents of the Constitution and First Amendment rights
We MUST think laterally and explore how to partner with organizations that have a platform much larger than we have. This is the fight for the DNA of humanity.
Think big.
Let me know your ideas.
Free photo 92881071 ©creativecommonsstockphotos – Dreamstime.com
