4 votes

Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann should call on Rick Perry to drop out

"Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann should consider calling on Rick Perry to drop out of the campaign because in the last debate, he falsely claimed that he had raised only $5,000 from the company involved with his ill-fated vaccination program....."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Once again, the media is protecting the government

From Jon Stewart to your local media, they are saying that gardisal is a vaccine that is helpful, not harmful.

A few facts.

Gardasil was not required to be tested long term like other vaccines.

When testing, the results were that the gardisal vaccine was as safe as the placebo. But the CDC allows companies to choose what the placebo will be. Gardasil chose ALUMINUM as its placebo...not a harmless substance like saline. Why? The Gardasil vaccine has aluminum in it. So the short term analysis shows little difference between the two...supposedly making it harmless.

Further, as the vaccine was going through final testing, it was already being forced on young girls. The young girls WAS the human portion of the final testing.

Gardasil is not a cancer vaccine, it is a virus vaccine...meaning it gives people a small amount of a virus.

As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events (vast majority female reports) following Gardasil vaccination...including 68 to 102 deaths. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious.

But the vaccine wasn't tested in a way it could be directly linked to any adverse affects. So the CDC backs the vaccine.

Although cervical cancer is the number two cancer in the world, BUT IN THE USA, IT IS NOT EVEN IN THE TOP TEN CANCERS. In the USA, you'd have to vaccinate every 11 year old girl in the US for the next 60 years to even touch the rate of cervical cancer in the USA. So such a vaccine would not be effective. Why? There are over 150 HPVs that cervical cancer could come from. Gardasil only affects two!

For decades, our pap tests do an amazing job finding cervical cancer early enough to treat it. But women who've had the vaccination are more likely to skip the pap test...actually increasing their chances of getting cervical cancer and several other diseases!

So why was there a MANDATE of a fairly untested dangerous VIRUS vaccine (not an effective cancer vaccine) in the USA that would result in an increase of vaginal disease?

BTW: Texas wasn't the only place to do this. Two other states did it as well as Spain, Poland, France, New Zealand, and Australia. Merk claimed on the vaccine package insert that there were not contaminated with viral HPV (live state) in Gardasil; however, when 13 vials were tested, all 13 vials had viral HPV. So most likely, those getting Gardasil are being exposed to viral HPV...where they could get cervical cancer. After this test, Merk merely removed their claim.

I got all this from Gary Null archive of 9/15/2011's show.
http://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/2011/09/15/the-gary-null-...

He said he would give a lot more info today on his show at noon EST.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/

His show covers topics that we talk about daily.

Exactly

RP and Michele should rip him another one if he does not capitulate.

donvino

amen to that !

*

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I say they need to hit him harder on HPV like so:

Governor - how many little girls died as a result of taking that vaccine you ordered them to take?

(after having done your homework to prove it): Governor, were you not informed that death was a known side effect? Were you not informed of the death RATE? Thus, is it not reasonable to assume, you ordered the vaccinations, KNOWING full well, X numbers of young girls would DIE as a result? How is that preserving life governor? Are you telling us dying from vaccines made by a company that donated to your campaign is less horrible than dying of cervical cancer?

Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt those girls would have contracted cervical cancer and died from it?

Do you have a license to practice medicine? (of course he doesn't)

Can you please explain why you should not be charged with practicing without a license and why you should not be charged with X counts of manslaughter - if not murder?

THAT will end his career. And the first candidate to do it, will be the hero of millions everywhere.

'Its simple'

To paraphrase Perry, RP and Bachmann should just keep hitting him with these facts and keep backing him into a corner. For Bachmann, it is her best option. People are on to her and her continual rants on the present administration.

donvino

no way can I agree with that..

His record will be known..and then let the people vote. The more neocon pieces of trash running the better...split up their votes and let all the liberty lovers vote for the good Dr.

Perhaps...

But I think Bachmann needs to drop out and endorse Dr. Paul too, to funnel what support she does have over to him. The entirety of her campaign is basically just her riding his coat tails anyhow, she agrees with pretty much every position he takes, and apparently she has admiration for Dr. Paul.

I think Perry will ultimately sink himself. The only criticism he's really been able to counter is Romney's, because Romney's criticism usually ends up looking more like desperation. His lack of knowledge is becoming more and more apparent with each debate, and there's still a lot of his record which hasn't been spoken about in the mainstream which will certainly not go over well with many Republican voters--believe me, I know, I've lived in Texas for most of my life. They haven't even gotten into Perry's NAFTA superhighway and imminent domain, Perry's intervention into a past death penalty investigation, or really even the fact that the Governorship of Texas has nothing to do with the vast majority of the positive things Perry seems to be taking credit for.

Ron Paul has done well not to trifle (yet) with any of the

following:

Bachmann
Gingrich
Cain
Huntsman

He may have had some disagreements, but none of those that I can recall have attacked each other even.

I think Paul stands a chance of getting a Bachmann endorsement, but I'm betting some thug talks her out of it.

Of the other three, Gingrich is the most like Dr. Paul, but I don't see him getting over the 4N policy differences.

I can't imagine Cain - an ex Fed chief to endorse Paul, and I doubt Huntsman would either.

Gingrich?

Newt is really nothing like Dr. Paul. He's really just an establishment cheerleader, and he's a neo-con. Plus, that whole thing with his affair while his wife was in bed fighting cancer... yeah...

Cain has decent presentation, and generally he seems to support sensible positions in most cases, but this 9/9/9 plan he keeps touting doesn't strike me as all that great at all.

Gingrich understands the Constitution - is what I was saying

and on domestic policy, he'd likely to implement policies the most similar out of all the candidates to Dr. Paul.

Yes, he is a neo-con. But not full bore. I'd bet if the winds changed, he would too. He wasn't always a neo-con and he isn't really a war monger. He tries to argue for sensible foreign policy, but he plays to the hard core murdering crowd so he doesn't get treated like Dr. Paul.

Yes, his personal life is trashed, I wasn't even beginning to compare him in that way to Dr. Paul - honestly, stuff like that isn't where I make my decisions. Such factors don't change my mind. I've already made that up on policy. If that's the only reason someone has not to vote for someone, they should re-examine their policy stances, because decisions can nearly always be made on substantive issues that directly impact the voters.