Help Free Angie

In October 2015, Angie's Facebook posts stopped.  I think it wasn't until January this year that I found out she was in a federal detention center in Brooklyn.  Here is the brief explanation, along with a petition that you can sign:  Explanation and Petition - for a more detailed explanation including the court case:  Court Case.  Below is why I am trying to help Angie.

I haven't met Angie Vu Ha in person, but met her on Model Mayhem several years ago while searching for models to update my portfolio.  A short time later we became FB friends, and I have been following and commenting on her posts since.  She was living in Singapore, but did a lot of traveling to the U.S. At some point, she contacted me on Google chat and said she was planning to move to LA, and asked if I had any suggestions on where to live.  And wanted to know about schools for her daughter. We chatted a few times, and I emailed her some information. She asked me about DJ jobs here.  I knew she was a DJ, but had no idea that she was rated top 10 sexiest DJ's in the world, playing at the best clubs, so I mentioned doing weddings, LOL.  As time went by, she decided to move instead to New York.  I learned a lot about her from her posts, supported and voted for her when she ran for Playboy's Miss Social, which she won in October, 2012.  Her posts have always been honest, caring, sweet, etc. – she wouldn't have won the Miss Social contest otherwise.  She never forgot to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, Happy Valentine's Day, Happy St Paddy's Day, etc.  In 2015 she became a Playboy Playmate in Venezuela.

You know how they say a picture is worth a thousand words?  Check the two photos below of Angie with had daughter.  I think those are a lot more than a thousand words, and why I'm supporting her.

If you go to the links above, you will see many of her personal friends comments – and they confirm her great qualities, as well as the love she has for her daughter.  Here are some of the comments posted on the petition site, where you can see them, plus many more (you can add your name to the petition there if you agree with what she wrote in the court case): “Angie is a hard-working, talented, responsible, loving mother.” Here's another comment: “I know Angie and Isabella personally. And I know that Isabella is always crying on the phone to Angie to come home and be with her.” And another about Angie: “Isabella has always been with you, and taken care by you and your good parents. Even if you are traveling a lot, you have always tried to fly Isabella to be with you. Even your Mom follows you to the places you have brought them for a good time...and you brought Isabella and your parents along, got a nice holiday.”

Angie didn't have to let the father, who abandoned her long before her daughter was born, be part of her daughters life.  She didn't have to get French citizenship for her daughter who was born in Vietnam, so her daughter could spend time with the father. But she believed it was the right thing to do, and she did it.

Keeping the above in mind, and after reading Angie's Testimony on the court case site, how could the French court have awarded custody to the father?  Did they interview the daughter? Did they interview those who know Angie?  Did they try to find out his relationship with the daughter for her first 5 years of her life (there was none)?  Did they ask why Angie got French citizenship for her daughter?  Did they check the facts of what the father said about Angie, or just believe the lies?  I think the answer is obvious from the outcome. If they did none of these things, shouldn't their decision be overturned?  Shouldn't Angie be free...and with her daughter?

But instead, Angie has been sitting in a Federal Detention Center in Brookly, NY, since Nov 4, 2015, due to an extradition request from France, which is based on the false custody case that the father won in a French Court, after she went out of her way to help him see his daughter (not get custody of).  With Angie in prison, what effect is this having on her daughter, not to mention on her?

Here are two photos of Angie and Isabella, her daughter:

Vaccines, and Drug Science vs Other Science

How do the two news items below differ from vaccination news items?  They are actually negative about the subjects and made the news.

"Lumber Liquidators' laminate flooring has been found to have a 3x higher risk of causing cancer than previously stated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reversing their own findings from earlier this month. A report released Feb. 10 used incorrect ceiling heights, lowering the airborne concentration of formaldehyde that should have been examined, the agency said in a statement. The estimated risk of tumors is six cases to 30 cases per 100K people, above the two to nine cases in the earlier report."  But, if the formaldehyde in several vaccines is injected into an infant, how is that OK?

"The academic study that helped propel shares of Weight Watchers (NYSE:WTW) to an 18% gain on Friday was funded by the company, observes the New York Post after scanning the fine print. Harvard Medical School professor David Ludwig notes the practice isn't uncommon, but doesn't quite qualify as good scientific practice."  Yet when vaccine and drug studies are done this way, they qualify as good scientific practice?  Plus, it will never make the news.

Has anyone ever seen even one negative news report about vaccines in the mainstream media (also sometimes referred to as the "Lamestream Media") ?

Funny how the criteria change for vaccine (and drug) studies.

Just came across this item:  "What do you think they'd (the CDC, Drug companies, media) say about the late Dr. Mayer Eisenstein's statement:  "…. 40 years ago when I started my practice only 1 in 10,000 children had autism. Today it's 1 in 100. What is the only difference we have seen? The inordinate number of vaccines that are being given to children today. My partners and I have over 35,000 patients who have never been vaccinated. You know how many cases of autism we have seen? ZERO, ZERO. I have made this statement for over 40 years: "NO VACCINES NO AUTISM"….  Then again, never mind. I already know what they'd say.  They'd say nothing. Because they would all much prefer that no-one ever speak about that."
The above statement was written a few years ago, now the autism rate is 1 in 45, and still climbing, and the link between vaccines and autism is still denied by those profiting from vaccines.

Now I need to say this - I've always been for optimal health, and whatever can be done to promote health I would also promote.  I have no reason to try to mislead anyone, I make no money from these posts, and my only reason for posting information about vaccines here, when I'd rather be posting about photography, is to hopefully stop you from making an uninformed choice that might endanger you or your family and loved ones.  The dangers of vaccines get no coverage in the media.  Unfortunately, the motive of the drug companies is profit, not health.  I mean, have you ever heard of a product being so unsafe that all liability was removed?  How crazy is that?  But the Supreme Court said because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, there will have no liability.  Which means there is no incentive for the vaccine makers to make them safe.

Put "Placebo Definition" in Google and read the definition.  Then see what the vaccine makers call a "Placebo."  I can tell you it is not the definition of a placebo.  They will use either another vaccine as a placebo, or a liquid with all the adjuvants of the vaccine they are testing.  Of course, there will be no difference in the comparison between their "placebo" and the vaccine, so therefore they will say the vaccine is safe.  Heck, using their study methods, I could have told them that and saved them the money of running the study!

Here is a link to an interview with Dr. Theresa Deisher PhD, that is very worth reading.  Here is a link to Dr. Suzanne Humphries, an M.D., part II of a video talk she gave in Copenhagen in November 2015, called Manufacture Consent, also an excellent resource.  You can see the other parts of her talk along the right side of that link.

Forget the studies for now.  But please don't forget about your freedom.  Those freedoms mentioned in the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Convention, Helsinki Accord, even the HHS Belmont Report, etc.  This includes the human right to not be medically experimented upon or have medical procedures performed on you without your consent.  We're not allowed to do these things to enemy combatants, but we are mandating them for our children?  Regardless of the arguments for or against vaccines, mandatory and forced vaccinations are anti-freedom.  Any politician who votes for mandatory vaccination is taking away your freedom (and perhaps your life or the life of your loved ones, not to mention permanent disabilities, E.R. visits, medical bills, etc., that are possible - see the chart at the underlined link just above).  If you allow them to take away this basic freedom, what other freedoms might they decide to take away in the future?  Look at history and Nazi Germany for the answer to that.

I would rather be writing about photography, but our freedom and health is much too important, especially with the push for mandatory vaccinations across this country.

Please read my last few posts on this subject regarding logic, common sense, statistics, and myths about vaccines, plus the links on this post, so you can come to your own educated conclusions about vaccine effectiveness and safety, or lack thereof.  The more you know, the safer you'll be!

Vaccinations, Common Sense, and Logic

Here are some things to think about, in response to what you hear in the media:

1.  What you hear in the media is that if you don't get vaccinated, all those terrible diseases will come roaring back and wipe out everyone.  But the reality is - vaccines wear off after 2 - 10 years, perhaps even less at the lower end.  And the majority of people don't get vaccinated after the age of 18.  So using some math and logic, at age 28, most people have no more immunity from vaccines, as most people don't continue to get them.  Why aren't these people suffering super pandemics?  Why aren't they dropping like flies?  Why are most of them not even getting sick?

2.  The media and drug companies say vaccines were the reason all diseases went away.  Then why did almost all diseases decrease around 90% before vaccines became available for those diseases?  Why did diseases with no vaccines available (such as scarlet fever) also disappear along the same basic timeline?  Common Sense and Logic would say that it was because of something else.  What changed from the days when these diseases were widespread and killed more people?  Sanitation, clean drinking water, better hygiene, better nutrition.

3.  They will tell you that everyone needs to be vaccinated for herd immunity.  Yet in China, where vaccination rates are 99.5%, there are still outbreaks of disease.  In the U.S., where pertussis vaccinations are the highest, they have the most outbreaks.  What does common sense and logic tell you about herd immunity?

4.  Perhaps the biggest and most dangerous statement you are told is that vaccines are safe.  That only one out of a million will experience a side effect.  Since the year 2000, between 60,000 and 600,000 have died from vaccines and millions have been injured (guess there must be around a trillion people living in the U.S., LOL) just go to VAERS and multiply the numbers there by at least 10, and probably the more correct number would be by at least 100, because that is how many actually get reported, or even attributed to a vaccine.  For example, there was a case of a healthy child who got vaccinated, had a severe reaction and died within 4 hours.  Cause of death was listed as "Undetermined!"  I think it can be logically said that it was the vaccine.  I just read that one county in one state is not allowed to list vaccine as a cause of death.

5.  They say vaccines don't cause Autism, that the science is settled.  Well, why has autism (and epilepsy) increased dramatically, and at the same time as vaccines have increased dramatically?  In the past 50 years it has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 45 (not a typo).  And now 1 in 20 has epilepsy.  The rates of cancer, ear infections, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders, etc., has also been increasing at alarming rates, again as vaccines have increased.  Common Sense and Logic tells you what?  It's amazing they don't have a clue what it is that is causing this, only they "know" it can't possibly be vaccines.   I mean, gee, how could injecting heavy metal neurotoxins (mercury and aluminum), formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, MSG, etc., possibly cause any problems?

6.  They tell you vaccines work.  And now they are promoting some to pregnant women.  In developed countries, the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate (not to mention we're at or near the bottom of the list for longevity and health), while at the same time we give more vaccines (and spend more on health), including more multiple vaccines at one time than any other country.  If vaccines worked, wouldn't logic tell you we should have the lowest infant mortality and live longer and healthier than any other country?

I hope I've made my point - that you need to stop listening to those who are trying to scare the hell out of you and start using some common sense and logic regarding vaccines.  When several vaccines are killing more people than the diseases they are supposed to prevent, that is what should scare you.  When some vaccines (pertussis in particular) increase your risk of getting the disease the vaccine is for, that also should scare you.  Mandatory vaccines should really scare the hell out of you, as should the loss of your freedom.  If, after doing all your logical research, you really think vaccines will help you in some way, go for it.  Just don't try to force it on others - it is also their choice, made on informed research and common sense/logic.

What common sense and logic tell me is that the vaccinologists are still far from knowing about how our immune systems work and function.  And until they know that, I know what my choice is.

I'll finish this with my favorite quote:  "It astounds me how people never learn, and simply accept what is suggested to them by those writing articles, or those speaking on television, as gospel. Have we lost the ability to think critically? Have we lost the ability to question what we are told based upon actual facts? Or have we simply adopted the "Foghorn Leghorn perspective:  "Don't bother me with facts, son. I've already made up my mind.""  I would add to this, to use common sense and logic.


NOTE:  After writing this earlier today, I felt like there was something I left out.  Now I have it!  What does logic and common sense tell you about those who have massive conflicts of interest (i.e.: those who profit from promoting something, in this case the media, drug companies, government)?  Should you believe them over reports from independent sources of information?  Could they be using misinformation and lies to scare you into doing something?  Would they attack those who disagree with them?