Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Email From Victoria Nicks to Me, Regarding my Dec. 8th Post 12/16/09

Vicky Nicks a writer at the Examiner, emailed me regarding my post about her and the articles she has written. Someone brought it to her attention. The post is here - which she refers to.

I will Always be up front and honest with everyone, even when I receive something back from someone I have posted about. The following is an email I received from Vicky Nicks and I have not changed it one dot or word etc. At the end is my reply back to her. Everyone can make up their own mind and decide for themselves if I was right or wrong in posting what I did on the 8th.

Victoria Nick's Email to Me

UPDATE 12/17/09 12:35PM

I had inserted Victoria Nick's email to me in full and unchanged from it being sent to me. BUT it seems that it UPSET Her Tremendously (even though I was putting her defense in the blog from my earlier posting). She emailed me saying "I was violating Copyright Laws" by inserting it. The link she gave me, so I could research email copyright laws, did not work. SO - I have deleted it as she has asked, thus her own defense is not put up here. I like all sides of a story to be seen, so people can make up their own mind. So, you will have my thoughts only about her email and her defense of my previous posting. (End of Update)

My Email Back to Her

Hi Vicky,

Vicky, I had noticed that most of your articles always refers to Dr. Niman's site as a reference for your information (in fact Dr. Niman's site is the Only site the MSM uses as a source of information). With that in consideration, and considering Dr. Niman's company and website is about working for the creation of vaccines. Besides the research I have been doing on him, brings up many questions about where his loyalties lay, and what his company really focuses on. Considering he very much promotes vaccines and some how he gets information others do not from WHO.

I read your articles and noticed a reoccurring theme, also we all read things in various ways. Now you are mentioning the CDC did a study from 2000 women from 1976 - you did NOT mention that in your article! It seems, if that is Fact - you should have said that it was Based from 1976!! That is completely irresponsible of the CDC to recommend it to pregnant women from a vaccine that was created in 1976, in my opinion!!

Also in being a reporter with that Information - then why did you not Question (as I am right now) about the vaccine being supposedly different now than in 1976? The 1976 vaccines were proven to cause more damage and deaths than the Swine Flu that year! That is HUGE information - that I have not seen in your articles and did not know before! You just gave me information that should be yelled across the Air ways!! The 1976 vaccine was Lethal and the CDC USED that for Recommending to Pregnant Women, because the babies did not get TOO MANY tumors?! That is NUTS!!

Funny, how you are taking exception to the fact I have read your articles and have taken them as a slant to promote the Swine Flu vaccine and you think I have twisted them. Now a question - doesn't the Main Stream Media twist things all the time? Don't they read or report something the way they want people to hear the news? I simply read your articles and did not twist your words, I in fact linked them, so people could read them, themselves and get out of it what they would. I am honest in my reporting.

I did realize the mistake in linking you to Dr. Taubenberger - after I found another article on it, ( - my additional insertion here - for clarification - not in email to her: and found you were not the original source of the article) and I will admit, I meant to correct that sentence, sorry I did not.

I will put your email up on my blog and my reply, so you will see I have nothing to hide and am quite willing to admit a mistake (additional insert here in post: regarding Dr. Taubenberger's results) and also show everyone your defense.

I believe in showing both sides of a story and letting people make up their own minds and think of it what they will, also I don't have an agenda from others (corporation owners, PTB, etc) for getting information out in only one way to make people believe something that may not be the real truth of the matter. I am only speaking about myself and not referring in that statement to anyone else.



I have since received Another Email from Vicky Nicks - she has said I have Violated copyright laws by putting any of her articles in my Blog, by inserting the words of it - Even though she said in "most cases" I linked them. I of course Informed her in ALL Cases they were linked - but it was the Norm for MSM to IMPLY something that was completely False! So I will be taking Out ALL of her articles - EXCEPT for the Dec. 8th Posting of mine with her articles Linked only.

Also I encourage everyone to go to the links I inserted in my Dec. 8th posts and decide for yourself on what she wrote and what it implies to you! Also in the email, is more information than what is in the articles!

I am VERY Interested in the Fact CDC used the 1976 Vaccine as the criteria for Pregnant women getting vaccinated! So does that mean the Vaccine today is the same LETHAL Vaccine from 1976 - if the CDC used that for the recommendation?

UPDATE 12/17/09 11;46am - Vicky Nicks Once again emailed me - saying She miss wrote the 1976 in her previous email regarding CDC and the testing for pregnant women - she had meant to put 1973. I am guessing she realized her mistake of informing us of the 1976 CDC testings on Pregnant women and that it did not show TOO MANY tumors on the babies (my thought there should not be Even One), considering that was No where in the article of information she had written for the Examiner.

I guess trying to back track and correct releasing of previously Unknown information is the aim.

I will also Say - If the CDC is Using ANY information that is 30 to 40 years old of testings and NOT On testings of the CURRENT Swine Flu Vaccine - SOMETHING IS MAJORLY WRONG WITH THAT!! Anybody who is a REAL Reporter should be QUESTIONING That decision of CDC to use testings from the 1970s!! They are recommending the Swine Flu vaccine for Women who are carrying children, which mean the world to them - on OUTDATED Testings?

That information in itself Needs to GET OUT To the Public!! Pregnant Women need to BEWARE of the Swine Flu Vaccine - it is NOT CURRENTLY TESTED!!


  1. If you disclose your source of info which you have... you do not violate copyright law. You gave information to the source so you have done your due diligence. Ask and Intellectual trademark Lawyer...

    She is trying to cover her a$$ let people decide by themselves...

    Thanks for your full disclosure, Sherri.

    from Canada

  2. since when are emails copywrite protected?
    she has no expectation of privacy once sent.

  3. Well, she did not want her email up of her defense, so I have taken it down. She claims copyright! I had wanted both sides to be shown, but she chose not to have hers posted!

  4. Sherrie,

    You need to contact The Examiner. As I understand, the copyright on their articles dont belong to the publication and are for the free use of anyone. Anybody can write for The Examiner- no credentials needed- just apply, as I did. It is totally a citizen journo site masquerading as a MSM outlet for legitimacy.